This op-ed is written by Scott Greenlee. He is the president of Greenlee Consulting, a full-service political and corporate consulting firm headquartered in Michigan, with an international presence in Manila, Philippines. A previously MIGOP Grassroots Vice-Chairman, he has advised candidates, political organizations, and corporate clients worldwide, driving successful campaigns and advocacy initiatives.

In Lansing, few labels carry more weight than “nonpartisan.”

MORE NEWS: Early Voting Begins Today Across Michigan

The word signals independence, credibility, and freedom from political influence. It tells reporters, lawmakers, and the public that an organization is not approaching an issue from the left or the right, but simply following the facts.

That is why the label matters. It is also why it should never be accepted without scrutiny. The Citizens Research Council of Michigan has long been treated as one of the state’s neutral policy referees. Its reports are cited in legislative debates, quoted in news stories, and used to shape public discussion on taxes, spending, education, infrastructure, and other major issues.

But the public deserves to know more than the label attached to the organization. A review of publicly available information regarding CRC’s funding, staff political activity, campaign contributions, and public statements raises fair questions about whether “nonpartisan” gives readers the complete picture.

That does not mean every report CRC publishes is wrong. It does not mean its employees cannot hold personal political views. It does not mean the organization should be excluded from policy debates.

It means CRC should be judged under the same standards applied to every other group trying to influence public policy.

Conservative think tanks rarely receive the benefit of a neutral description. Their ideological orientation is often included in the first sentence of a news story. Reporters regularly identify their donors, political relationships, or policy preferences before presenting their research.

That context is not inherently unfair. Readers should know where influential organizations are coming from. The problem is when the standard is applied selectively.

MORE NEWS: Whitmer Endorses Haley Stevens in Tight Michigan Senate Primary

When a center-right organization releases a report, it is usually described as conservative. When a labor-backed group publishes an analysis, its union ties are disclosed. When an industry association enters a debate, its financial interests are treated as relevant.

Yet CRC is routinely presented simply as “nonpartisan,” as though the label itself settles every question about perspective and independence.

It should not.

Public records show CRC has received substantial support from major foundations that also fund progressive advocacy, media, education, and policy organizations. Public campaign-finance records and political participation histories also show that several staff members have supported Democratic candidates, participated primarily in Democratic primaries, or publicly expressed strong partisan views like calling President Trump “mein fuhrer.”

None of those facts alone disqualifies CRC or proves that a particular report is biased. But taken together, they are relevant.

Imagine the reaction if an organization regularly cited as a neutral authority received significant support from conservative foundations, employed senior staff who donated to Republican candidates, and had leaders who publicly mocked Democratic presidents. Would the media continue to describe that organization only as “nonpartisan”? Most people know the answer.

The issue is not whether people with political views can produce serious research. They can. The issue is transparency and equal treatment.

Organizations that wield significant influence should not be shielded from scrutiny because they have successfully branded themselves as neutral. Their work should be evaluated on its merits, but readers should also receive enough context to understand the funding, personnel, and perspective behind it.

The solution is simple.

Reporters should provide relevant context when citing CRC, just as they do with other policy organizations. Lawmakers should assess its conclusions rather than treating them as the final word. CRC should also be willing to explain its funding, internal safeguards, and standards for maintaining analytical independence.

That is not an attack on research.

It is a defense of credibility.

Michigan needs serious institutions capable of analyzing difficult policy questions. But those institutions earn trust through openness, consistency, and accountability not labels.

“Nonpartisan” may describe how an organization sees itself. It should never be used as a substitute for transparency or independent judgment.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Great Lakes News.