Giving Ventures Podcast: Episode 105 – Blueprint for State-Level Change

This transcript has been AI-generated and lightly edited for clarity. Some inaccuracies may remain.

Peter Lipsett: If there’s one trend we’ve seen at DonorsTrust over the past few years, it’s that more and more donors are interested in putting their support behind things in the states — a little more local for their giving. And that’s not a surprise. You can have a lot of impact at the state level. You can move the needle and you can actually see the needle moved. It’s accessible, and there’s a terrific ecosystem of really great free market think tanks all across the country, in every state. Some stronger than others, but all working towards ideas that we believe in.

One state that has been particularly blessed and has worked really hard to create not just a terrific think tank, but a whole web of great organizations advancing the ideas that people who listen to this podcast care about, is Pennsylvania. The Commonwealth Foundation is among the strongest and most influential of the state free market think tanks in the State Policy Network. It has been at it for almost 40 years, pumping out smart policy ideas to advance prosperity in a state that’s not frankly always friendly to those ideas. And it has been complemented by a whole menagerie of additional organizations doing litigation, pushing back on unions, and engaging in the political side of things with a C6 and with a PAC. We’ll get into some of that in a little bit.

So today we’re going to look at Pennsylvania as a case study of what change can look like, what donors can make possible when they get excited about really driving market ideas in a state. We’ll talk about what it takes to be a battleground state in the battle of ideas and how people can invest towards that goal. Matt Brouillette runs Commonwealth Partners, which is a 501(c)(6) organization in Pennsylvania. He formerly ran the 501(c)(3) think tank, Commonwealth Foundation, and has a new book coming out called You Gotta Win Pennsylvania, which is pretty straightforward in telling its thesis that Pennsylvania is a really important state and can be a model for creating change elsewhere. Matt, great to see you.

Matt Brouillette: Hey, great to be with you, Peter. Thanks for having me on.

Peter Lipsett: So the first sentence in your book is a little unexpected to me. You start the book with this sentence: “This is the story of entrepreneurs.” That’s not necessarily where I expected a book that, from the title, seemingly is about politics. Maybe this is a book about politicians, or activists, or citizens — because we care about citizens. Why entrepreneurs?

Matt Brouillette: Well, it’s quite simple for me as a former high school and middle school history teacher. I love talking about the founding of our country because we’re so unique in the history of mankind. Even today, we represent 5% of the world’s population, but frankly, the other 95% of the world depends on America remaining America. And as a history teacher, I love talking about the founding of this country and the men who pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor to create something that frankly nobody could have ever imagined could be created — and in doing so, leaving what was then the world’s greatest power. So these men were truly entrepreneurs in a political sense and even in the literal sense in business.

It was entrepreneurs who founded and ultimately built this great country. And the thesis of my book, Peter, is that I believe it will be entrepreneurs who ultimately save America — that entrepreneurs need to step up in the same way that they did at the founding of this country. So to me, entrepreneurs are the keystone — and I’ll steal that from Pennsylvania — the keystone to keeping America America.

Peter Lipsett: And you’re really defining entrepreneurs broadly, right? Not just money entrepreneurs, not just people who build things and earn capital from it, but social entrepreneurs, idea entrepreneurs — people who are essentially just willing to put their life, ideas, and fortunes on the line to move the ball forward. Is that fair?

Matt Brouillette: Absolutely. And in my book, I highlight education entrepreneurs — people who think, “Hey, there’s a better way that we can educate kids who are from low-income backgrounds, trapped in schools that don’t work for them,” and who come up with ideas on how to do that, breaking the mold. Throughout the book, I talk about these kinds of entrepreneurs who were willing to take risks without knowing the outcome. We need more of that. We can’t just play it safe anymore.

I believe it’s entrepreneurs throughout — whether in the nonprofit world or obviously the for-profit world — who are going to determine whether America remains America. I wanted to highlight the role they’ve played, certainly in Pennsylvania, the fifth largest state and the biggest swing state in the country. Entrepreneurs in Pennsylvania have stopped the state from becoming blue and are fighting today to help Pennsylvania become a leader in the Northeast and in the country once again.

Peter Lipsett: Maybe that phrase “there is a better way” is kind of the defining call for the entrepreneur. Everything you said there feeds into my next question. Turning to Pennsylvania, turning to Commonwealth Foundation, which you ran for many years until 2016 — you took it over in 2002, and I believe at the time there were just three staff, presumably including you, and three real donors to it.

Which is not a lot of donors and not a lot of staff for a think tank, particularly given how significant you have become. I’m curious, from the donors’ psychology, what did they see that led them to take such a risky bet and keep taking that risky bet in a hard state to build this think tank?

Matt Brouillette: Yeah, so when I came to Commonwealth Foundation in 2002, I had left the Mackinac Center where I was the director of education policy. I had more staff and a bigger budget just in my education department than I had at Commonwealth Foundation. So I figured I couldn’t screw this thing up — I could only go up from there. And at the same time, Peter, some of those donors were like, “Who is this French guy coming in from Michigan who grew up in San Diego? Can we empower him and trust him to do something with Commonwealth Foundation?” Well, fortunately they did, and I was able to build Commonwealth Foundation from a sleepy think tank into one that was having an impact in state politics.

While I recognize the importance of a think tank — and Commonwealth Foundation is just critical for Pennsylvania’s policy direction — it’s important, but it’s not sufficient. In 2016, my then board chairman at Commonwealth Foundation and I started Commonwealth Partners Chamber of Entrepreneurs. The reason we did that was that we recognized if we wanted to see good policy get enacted, we’d need to have better politicians, and that required us to get engaged in politics. Because we don’t do things politically just to have someone with an R after their name. Our objective is to actually achieve positive policy outcomes — rescue kids from bad schools, improve our business climate, create things that truly help people live the lives they want to pursue and achieve the dreams they want to achieve.

So we’ve taken a holistic approach that looks at policy as our primary objective, while recognizing that we’ve got to be engaged in politics if we want better politicians carrying good policy across the finish line. That’s how we transformed ourselves and grew into what we call a durable freedom infrastructure — a holistic approach to advancing political and policy change for the good of the people of Pennsylvania.

Peter Lipsett: Did that scare the donor community — broadly speaking — when you started this C6 and essentially said, “We think we want to get involved in politics”? I feel like a lot of C3, foundational, think-tanky donors might say, “Oh, that’s the dirty stuff. We don’t want to touch that.”

Matt Brouillette: Certainly. And frankly, that’s why I got into the think tank world. I’d done some work on a U.S. Senate campaign in California when Republicans could actually win — this was back in the 90s — and I realized I really liked the policy side of things. So I got into the think tank world. My first job was at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Michigan, and I had a passion for good public policy.

A lot of the donors who were with us at Commonwealth Foundation did recognize the importance of good policy. And many of them, frankly, felt that politics was icky, was dirty. So this was a real risk. When I went home and told my wife and our four young kids at the time that I was going to leave Commonwealth Foundation to do more political work with the creation of Commonwealth Partners — that was indeed a risk, because I didn’t know if the many donors we had at Commonwealth Foundation would transition into the political world.

A number of donors believed in us, and we’ve helped a lot of people recognize that you need to have both — the policy side and the politics. So a lot of our donors are now investing across the board. And Peter, it was a little hard for my board, who thought, “You’re going to cannibalize the donors at Commonwealth Foundation for Commonwealth Partners.” But what we’ve seen is that the pie has grown. When people see effectiveness, success, and the things we’ve accomplished, that has generated even greater investment. People are investing all across the board — using their donor-advised funds to invest in Commonwealth Foundation and then writing political checks to help Commonwealth Partners get the right people in office so they will then do the right things.

Peter Lipsett: Yeah, I think a lot of fundraisers and board leaders don’t necessarily realize that donors are thinking in different buckets. It’s not all just one pot of money in their heads. There’s the C3 bucket, the hospital C3 bucket, the policy C3 bucket — and then the political bucket can be a whole different thing. And it probably opens up new donors too.

Matt Brouillette: No doubt. But something you said at the beginning of the podcast, Peter, is really important. State-level politics is generally neglected by national donors — people who really care about America. They might be paying attention to what’s happening in their own backyard and certainly what goes on in Washington, D.C.

The challenge I’ve seen in my 30 years involved in the state movement is that a lot of national donors don’t recognize what the left has recognized for decades: if you can control things at the state level, you will then control things at the national level. That’s what’s been happening across this country — progressive investors have been putting their money into state-level infrastructure development through C3s, C4s, and political action. That’s how they are capturing states and essentially flipping things nationally.

We can go back to Colorado in the 2000s. It was a solid red state, but four billionaire progressives decided to retake Colorado’s politics. Ever since then, it’s a deep blue state — and in fact, one of those billionaires, Jared Polis, is now the governor of Colorado. That has been a strategy the left is deploying all across the country and especially right here in Pennsylvania, where our current governor receives more than half of his money from outside of Pennsylvania. Our state elections are being predominantly funded by national dollars — money flowing from George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Steven Spielberg. You name the progressive donor list, and they recognize: if we can capture the state, we can control the nation.

Peter Lipsett: There’s a lot of talk that the left just has more money, pours more money in — out-of-state money flowing into smaller states or key strategic states — and the right just plays completely differently. The conservative side just doesn’t play that way. But we like to believe, we tell ourselves, “Well, but we have outsized impact with the money we do put in.” True or false? Do you think that narrative is right?

Matt Brouillette: Well, look, we’re very competitive at national races. We had a huge U.S. Senate race here in 2024 in Pennsylvania — Dave McCormick being the only Republican to beat a sitting Democrat in one of the battleground states. And we saw sufficient money coming into Pennsylvania from outside. But where we are unmatched is at the local level. In state elections, we are not seeing that same level of strategic awareness from conservatives on the right that we see from the left.

That’s a real threat in states like Pennsylvania and the other battleground states — whether it’s Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, or Arizona. The left is heavily investing. They’re pooling their money nationally for state-level elections because they know that if they capture the house, the senate, the governor, and the courts, they can control congressional district lines. We’re seeing that in Virginia, where they’re threatening to redraw lines that would create a 10-to-1 Democrat majority. When they capture things at the state level, that’s how they advance their issues nationally. This is where conservatives on the right do not understand things the way progressives on the left have — and I think that’s one of the greatest threats we’re seeing in our key swing states in America today.

Peter Lipsett: How does the relationship work — and I know we should stipulate these are 501(c)(6) and 501(c)(3) organizations, different boards, different organizations, very different missions — and yet, just as we hope a think tank has influence over politicians, leaders, and the grass tops with the ideas it puts out, how does the agenda and messaging of the C3 inform some of the work you do?

Matt Brouillette: We are absolutely synergistic in that regard because the policy agenda and principles of Commonwealth Foundation are the ones I share at Commonwealth Partners. As you noted, we are completely separate entities with separate boards. We draw bright lines between our organizations to stay in compliance. But that doesn’t prevent coordination.

So frequently what happens — and I’ll give you an example of how we engage in the political sphere — we will identify a candidate or come alongside a candidate for office, and Commonwealth Foundation will provide policy briefings for anybody, whether you’re a Democrat or Republican. We make sure all of our folks get a download of what’s important, what’s happening in our state legislature, the top policy issues, and the talking points on the hot issues of the day. Then once we are successful in helping get them into office, Commonwealth Foundation comes alongside them. They have a full government affairs team spending time up on Capitol Hill, in the district, in our offices. They surround these officials with good people — and relationships matter. Commonwealth Foundation builds those relationships with the right people and helps them do the right thing once they’re in office.

So it’s really a holistic approach, and I think it’s very unique among states — we not only do the politics, but we work on the policy. A traditional campaign consultant is only interested in getting somebody across the goal line on the first Tuesday in November and then really doesn’t care what they do once they’re in office. We care very much, and that’s what drives us. That accountability is why we’ve been able to move issues that weren’t even on the radar in Pennsylvania to being the top priorities of our elected officials.

This approach is one we’d love to see more states adopting. Think tanks are critically important, but I don’t think they’re sufficient if our end goal is to see good public policy that helps kids and improves business climates. We’d like to see this model exported, and we’ve been doing that — talking to a lot of states about how we’ve done this, because we’re entrepreneurial. We’ve lost things. We’ve done things incorrectly. But we’re here to try to make this work so that we can save America.

Peter Lipsett: Well, it’s great, and I think it is a very exportable model. I’m sure we all like to believe our states are unique and different, but sometimes if it works, it works. What is the biggest obstacle to replicating what you’re doing in other states? Is it dollars? Is it the will? Is it different election structures? What is it?

Matt Brouillette: Well, it’s all those things, and you’re exactly right. It’s not a plug-and-play. You can’t just take what we’re doing in Pennsylvania and put it in Virginia or any other state. Everybody’s going to have to be entrepreneurial and unique in how they deploy this. Frankly, we made that mistake about 15 years ago — we watched what Scott Walker had done in Wisconsin in 2011. We saw a lot of the infrastructure that was built there to effectuate that change and thought, “Let’s just replicate exactly what Wisconsin did.” We went about doing that but quickly realized, “You know what? This isn’t exactly the same.”

That’s what every entrepreneur has to do — you run into a roadblock, and you figure out how to do it better. When we started Commonwealth Partners, we thought we were only going to spend money through independent expenditures, meaning using our members’ dollars and deploying them on behalf of a candidate. Well, what we found is that many of our members were more than willing to write personal checks as political action dollars.

The difference between independent expenditures and PAC dollars is significant. One, you can coordinate with the candidates, and that has allowed us to work directly with them. Two, it actually maximizes your dollars because independent expenditures often have to pay higher rates for media purchases than candidates do. And finally, when we come alongside with political action dollars, that creates a partnership and a friendship with the people who are in office. In politics, everything revolves around those relationships — and that really helps us build them. As I like to say, with the people we help elect, we really don’t have to hold their hands or twist their arms to do the right thing. But it’s great to be in close proximity when difficult issues are coming up or we need them to stand strong against special interests. Because of the political action dollars we can bring to some of these fights, that has really empowered us to make our policy issues the priority issues of our elected leaders.

Peter Lipsett: And to me, that’s always one of the priorities for any state think tank — to be setting the agenda, the tone of what people are discussing, what candidates are discussing, even from a C3 perspective, kind of writing the script: “This is the important issue. And if you’re not responding to it, you’re out of step.”

Matt Brouillette: No doubt. When Charles Mitchell, my partner, and I were figuring out that we needed a political arm, we actually thought, “Well, let’s find somebody else who can do this. Is there an existing entity that can do this?” As we looked around, we didn’t find one. That’s why I had to leave Commonwealth Foundation to create this new entity. But in some states, there may be political players who already share your values and can come alongside to work with a think tank. There’s no one-size-fits-all approach to this. But I do think every state needs to think about how they’re going to effectuate political and policy change — and doing both is critical.

Peter Lipsett: So one thing you say in your book — and I’m paraphrasing — is essentially that red doesn’t mean conservative. Just because they have Republican behind their name doesn’t mean they actually believe in free markets, prosperity, and the things one might think of as a conservative free-market approach. I’m curious how that has played out, both in terms of having to push back against Republicans, but also — does that mindset open the door to working with people who have a D behind their name?

Matt Brouillette: Well, we have, in fact, worked with people with a D behind their name, especially when it’s been an opportunity to expand school choice, which we’ve done a lot of in Pennsylvania despite having hostile governors. We’ve seen school choice expand.

But when I came in 2002, Peter, I was frankly not welcome in a lot of Republican leadership offices because the things we stood for were not the Republican agenda. Remember back then, our highest elected Republican official was Arlen Specter — that gives you an idea, at least for your older viewers and listeners, of what that means. We had lots of Republicans who didn’t behave like Republicans. But because of our influence through Commonwealth Foundation and then Commonwealth Partners politically, Pennsylvania Republicans now truly share our values. It’s not that milquetoast republicanism of Arlen Specter anymore — they are championing the issues that we as free-market champions stand for. The Republican Party in Pennsylvania shares our policy priorities in a way they didn’t used to.

Peter Lipsett: That’s great. And of course, we did a whole 11-part series on how the right has shuffled around a bit and things look a little different, with some lanes changing. Are you able to work across all lanes of the right — maybe not the ones that are just pro-big government — but in this current political climate, is it harder or easier?

Matt Brouillette: It’s actually gotten a lot easier. Where we used to have a lot of outliers, those numbers have dwindled in our state legislature. Frankly, that’s part of why we’ve got some razor-thin majorities and a razor-thin minority in our state house. The Democrats have a 102-101 majority in our state house right now — so razor-thin there.

But where we used to have a dozen Republicans who didn’t toe the line on, say, school choice, now there might be one or two. What’s happened is that Republicans have certainly embraced a free-market agenda in Pennsylvania, and we’re able to get some Democrats from time to time on these issues. But frankly, the polarization we’ve seen — probably all across the country — has made it much more difficult for good bipartisan policymaking to actually see the light of day. It’s frustrating for those of us who are here for good policy, because the politics tends to get in the way, sadly.

Peter Lipsett: I want to go back to the C3 world a little bit, and just the entrepreneurialism of Commonwealth — Commonwealth Inc., if you will — because you’ve obviously launched Commonwealth Partners as a C6 and PAC, but there are other organizations that have spun out of Commonwealth Foundation. Talk to us about those and why.

Matt Brouillette: Yeah. So as I was running Commonwealth Foundation from 2002 until 2016, I noted how we watched what Scott Walker did in Wisconsin after his election in 2010 and what was going on in 2011. What that really did for us in Pennsylvania was sharpen our focus. We have very powerful union special interests in Pennsylvania — both public and private sector unions are very powerful politically. The conventional wisdom was that you can’t take them on. They are dominant.

When we watched what Scott Walker did in Wisconsin, it gave us a lot of hope. We thought, if Wisconsin can take on the public sector unions, we can too in Pennsylvania. So Commonwealth Foundation really shifted its focus. What I’ve always said is that when I had to make decisions at the foundation, it was never choosing between good and bad public policy. It’s choosing between good, better, and best. And what we focused on is: if we want to tackle the most important things, we’re going to have to remove the impediment of the public sector unions. We recognized they weren’t only opposing us on education — say, the teacher unions — but on everything: reducing taxes, reducing regulation, healthcare, infrastructure. The public sector unions were on the wrong side of every issue we tackled.

So we said, we need to stop flailing at the branches and tackling every single issue, and instead strike at the root of the problem: public sector unions. In 2014, we helped launch the Fairness Center, which is a public interest law firm solely dedicated to representing public employees against unions that have abused their power. The Fairness Center, currently run by Nathan McGrath, has — I believe — over 90 live cases all across the country now, representing public employees against public sector unions. They’ve deprived the public sector unions of tens of millions of dollars and freed many people from the abusive power of public sector unions. Using litigation to level the playing field has been a key part of our strategy, and they’ve been doing it since 2014 — over 10 years now.

Peter Lipsett: And it’s worth noting that’s an organization that, as you say, works nationally. That’s actually something other think tanks could tap into as a resource — they don’t necessarily need to rebuild it from scratch. It’s already there.

Matt Brouillette: Correct. They’re eager to work with partners, and that’s how they’ve expanded — our think tank partners in those states have brought the Fairness Center in when they’ve had an issue. I know of one case they’re working on right now in New Jersey, where the former teacher union president illegally used teacher union dues to support his campaign for governor. The Fairness Center is involved in that, and there’s going to be a lot more coming out on that as the litigation goes forward.

That’s how we’ve said: look, we’re about America. And of course, Pennsylvania is important to us — as the fifth largest state, it’s an important state. But we fight for freedom everywhere we can. The Fairness Center is taking that fight to the courts to fight for freedom against those who really stand against us at every level of government — and those are the public sector unions.

Peter Lipsett: And there’s also Americans for Fair Treatment, which is doing work on the union side. And then Black Pastors United for Education — I know you work very closely with them. It’s just a lot of groups that you’re really close to, which I think is phenomenal.

Matt Brouillette: Yeah. Well, that’s one of the wonderful things — when you’re in this sphere and you engage with other entrepreneurs. You mentioned Black Pastors United for Education. Pastor Joshua Robertson has become a great friend. I met him through a cold call.

I was on a board called the Joshua Group, where we serve Harrisburg City kids to help them escape crummy public schools that are often violent. We provide about 180 scholarships for kids to get out of the Harrisburg City Schools. The ministry I was working with needed some after-school space for our kids. The executive director said, “Matt, why don’t you call this guy? He’s a pastor right around the corner. I hear he’s a cool dude.” So I just cold-called Pastor Robertson and we hit it off right away.

When I described what we’re trying to do for kids, he said, “Matt, these kids are like me. That’s who I was when I was young.” He had gone to college without being able to read past the second grade and ended up failing out. The only reason he was admitted was because he was a good athlete. He lost 25 Division I football scholarships, but eventually learned to read from a pastor who came alongside him. That obviously inspired Pastor Josh to get into the ministry.

Black Pastors United formed because Josh said, “Look, I want to rescue as many kids as I can, starting in his community, but now going all across the country.” And this is how we’ve seen that entrepreneurial drive in people — creating new things that help others. We’re very proud of the things that people have gone off to do, whether it’s the Fairness Center with Nathan McGrath as the litigation firm, or Pastor Joshua with Black Pastors United, advocating for kids and for school choice all across this country.

Peter Lipsett: So hopefully some folks are listening here and saying, “Gosh, I want to see more of this in my state. Pennsylvania sure is thinking big. We need to think big.” What advice do you have for those donors? What are the questions they should be asking in their own state? Are there things they need to rethink in their own giving to make this possible? What are the questions?

Matt Brouillette: No doubt. That’s where I so appreciate and am blessed to interact with entrepreneurs who have allowed us to take risks. Not everything we’ve done has been successful. So having board members of your organizations who say, “Let’s think outside the box. Let’s think big. And we know we’re not going to be successful in all of this” — I think it takes that kind of leadership from boards to drive things forward, to bring in the right people, and to have leaders who think entrepreneurially and are empowered to fail so that they can learn from those mistakes.

One of the things I like to do is go into states that are looking to do things similar to what we’ve done and say, “Look, this is what we did. This utterly failed. Avoid that pitfall.” We come alongside whoever is looking for help to craft the kind of infrastructure that I think is necessary for political and policy change. Because I believe that if we do this well at the state level, that’s how we impact things at the national level — not the other way around.

So I think it’s critical that organizations all across our country who are fighting for freedom think about: what are we missing? What’s the piece of the puzzle? Is it a litigation arm? Is it a media arm? What is it that we need to bring into this fight for freedom? Go out and do it. Take the risk, take the jump — because it’s worth it.

Peter Lipsett: Well, as I said, you start the book talking about entrepreneurs, and I think there are a lot of people who don’t necessarily think of themselves as entrepreneurs, but do have big ideas and ambitions, and can act on those through their dollars, through their time, through their gifts. They should go do it, because there’s a lot of country to save. Matt Brouillette, thank you so much for joining us and sharing all this with us.

Matt Brouillette: Thank you, Peter. Enjoyed being with you.

Peter Lipsett: Well, in case it wasn’t obvious, I’ve been impressed with what Matt and Charles and others are doing in Pennsylvania for a long time. They have really built a terrific blueprint for other states to follow — in terms of not just creating good policies, not just disseminating good policies, but holding politicians to the fire, holding unions accountable, and helping citizens really understand what these ideas actually mean. It’s a phenomenal case study.

And as we heard Matt say, it’s replicable. It can be done in your state as well by entrepreneurs. And maybe you are one of them by virtue of listening to this. I hope you think of yourself as an entrepreneur. We need everyone who cares about these ideas to think bigger and to give in whatever way they can — whether that’s with their time, their talents, or their financial resources. Be entrepreneurial in saying: these ideas matter, our world is able to be better, our state is able to be better, and we can help everyone live stronger, more free, more prosperous lives. Commit to doing it. Go do it. It’s important.

Check the show notes for all of the organizations we mentioned in the conversation, and links so you can find out more and go find Matt’s new book, You Gotta Win Pennsylvania, which comes out Monday, April 6th, 2026. You don’t want to miss it — it’s good.

And if you think states are an important catalyst for change, then donate to your local think tank. If you need help identifying a think tank or figuring out which one is a very good fit with your giving, and you’re already working with DonorsTrust, let’s have a conversation about how that fits into your strategy. And if you aren’t already working with DonorsTrust and don’t yet have a donor-advised fund here — get started. Go to DonorsTrust.org, see how it works, kick the tires a little bit, reach out to us, and let’s figure out how we can be helpful to you in simplifying your giving, maximizing your tax deduction, giving you a little more flexibility, and also giving you a team that knows this world and can help you maximize the impact of your charitable giving — because that is always the goal.

I appreciate you listening in. Rate the show if you would, help other people find it, and refer it to a friend. And above all, thank you for being a giver. We’ll talk more soon.