The Buckeye Institute
Public records show a registered, tax-exempt organization in good standing.
What it says it does
The Buckeye Institute is an independent research and educational institution -- a think tank -- whose mission is to advance free-market public policy in the states.
- Income
- $4.6 million
- Spending
- $3.1 million
- Spent on programs
- 89%
- Reserves
- 29.8 months of spending
- Largest source of income
- donations and private grants, 92%
- Employees
- 17
- Volunteers
- 8
- Highest pay
- $452,695, president and ceo
Source: Form 990 for the year ending December 31, 2024, filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Rating method 2026.2. How we rate
Financial health
Strong: 95 out of 100.
Reserves
35 of 35Spendable reserves would cover 29.8 months of spending.
Debt
20 of 20It owes 2% of what it owns.
Living within its means
15 of 15Income exceeded spending by 33% of income.
Income trend
10 of 15Income fell 1% on the year before.
Spending floor
15 of 1589% of spending went to programs and raising each dollar of donations cost 3 cents.
Source: Form 990 for the year ending December 31, 2024, filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Rating method 2026.2. How we rate
Governance
Strong: 100 out of 100.
Independent board
25 of 254 of 5 voting board members are independent.
Conflict of interest policy
15 of 15Has a written conflict of interest policy.
Whistleblower policy
8 of 8Has a written whistleblower policy.
Record keeping policy
7 of 7Has a written policy on keeping and destroying records.
Board minutes
5 of 5Keeps minutes of board meetings.
Board sees the tax return
10 of 10Gave the board a copy of this return before filing it.
Pay set independently
5 of 5Sets its chief executive's pay through independent review and comparison.
Independent check of accounts
15 of 15Its accounts were audited by an independent accountant.
No reported misuse
10 of 10Reports no diversion of assets, excess benefits or loans to insiders.
Source: Form 990 for the year ending December 31, 2024, filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Rating method 2026.2. How we rate
Impact evidence
Describes programs. Its tax return describes what it does but we have found no measurable results in it.
Programs described in its return (1)
- $2.7 million spent. The Buckeye Institute develops durable and replicable economic and legal public policy solutions to our great nation's most pressing problems. Buckeye's Economic Research Center (ERC) produces academic-quality, peer-reviewed, scholarly reports and dynamic models to assess the impact of various policy changes on state economies, businesses, and taxpayers. Buckeye's amicus brief filings and direct litigation seek to expand liberty, opportunity, and prosperity for all Americans, protect individual rights, uphold the rule of law, limit government power, defend against encroachments on freedom and intrusions into citizens' lives, families, businesses, and property, which-we hope-will sustain our precious constitutional republic for generations to come. The Buckeye Institute Case Summaries for 2024 IRS Form 990 Filing Buckeye v. IRS. The IRS requires 501(c)(3) organizations, including The Buckeye Institute, to disclose their "significant donors" via Form 990, Schedule B. The Buckeye Institute sued, claiming that the U.S. Constitution protects the right of private association in the First Amendment. The case is pending in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. No fees have been awarded. Ream v. U.S. Department of Treasury. John Ream, founder and owner of Trek Brewing in Newark, Ohio, would like to distill alcohol in his own home for personal consumption, which is prohibited by federal law. Ream sued, asserting that this law is unconstitutional because the federal government does not have the authority to regulate in-home distillation for personal consumption. The case is pending in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. No fees have been awarded. Form 990, Part III, Line 4a (continued) The Big Board v. District of Columbia Department of Health. From 2020 to 2022, the Mayor of Washington, D.C., issued a series of 90-day emergency orders requiring eating establishments to check customers' vaccine status before allowing entry and requiring diners to wear masks. These rolling orders lasted two years. The Big Board sued, arguing that D.C. law did not authorize the Mayor to issue any emergency order lasting more than 90 days, and that re-issuing the orders was illegal. The U.S. District Court dismissed the case, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed that dismissal. No fees have been awarded. Flannery v. Eckenwiler. From 2020 to 2022, the Mayor of Washington, D.C., issued a series of 90-day emergency orders requiring eating establishments to check customers' vaccine status before allowing entry and requiring diners to wear masks. Eric Flannery, owner of The Big Board neighborhood tavern, exercised his First Amendment rights by tweeting that everyone was welcome at The Big Board. When Mr. Flannery sought to renew his liquor license in 2022, members of the local Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC 6C) protested, in apparent retaliation for Mr. Flannery's public comments. With The Buckeye Institute's assistance, Mr. Flannery defeated the protest. Mr. Flannery sued, and this case is on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals. No fees have been awarded. Darling v. AFSCME. Plaintiffs are public employees who were previously union members but subsequently resigned. Although their unions accepted the resignations, they continued to deduct dues from plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sued to stop the wage theft and recoup their money. Plaintiffs assert that the contract, which requires plaintiffs to continue paying dues after terminating their membership, is invalid. The Common Pleas court dismissed the case, which was affirmed on appeal. The Ohio Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction. No fees were awarded. Littlejohn v. AFSCME. In June 2022, Necole Littlejohn notified her employer and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Ohio Council 8 of the AFL-CIO that she was resigning from the government union. Although the union accepted her resignation, it continued to deduct dues and her vacation time for union activities. Littlejohn brought this case against the union to enjoin their wage theft and recoup her money. The Ohio Hamilton County Common Pleas Court dismissed the case, which is on appeal in Ohio's First District Court of Appeals. The case is pending. No fees have been awarded. Schaad v. Alder. During the pandemic, Josh Schaad worked from home. Ohio House Bill 197, a temporary law passed during the pandemic, allowed municipalities to tax employees based on their "principal place of work" instead of the actual place of work. Effectively, Mr. Schaad was taxed by Cincinnati while he worked from home in Blue Ash. Mr. Schaad challenged the law, but the Ohio Supreme Court upheld Ohio House Bill 197. No fees were awarded. Curcio v. Hufford. During the pandemic, plaintiffs worked from their homes located outside of the municipalities where they worked. Ohio House Bill 197, a temporary law passed during the pandemic, allowed municipalities to tax employees based on their "principal place of work" instead of the actual place of work. Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of that law. Ohio's Sixth District Court of Appeals ultimately upheld Ohio House Bill 197. No fees were awarded. Morsy v. Dumas/Morsy v. Gentile. During the pandemic, Dr. Manal Morsy worked from her home in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, rather than downtown Cleveland. Ohio House Bill 197, a temporary law passed during the pandemic, allowed municipalities to tax employees based on their "principal place of work" instead of the actual place of work. Dr. Morsy sued for a refund of those taxes. After the Common Pleas court ruled in favor of Dr. Morsy, the City of Cleveland agreed to 1) fully refund the taxes that were illegally taken from Dr. Morsy, 2) pay the interest owed to her according to Cleveland City Ordinance, and 3) reimburse her court costs. No fees were awarded. Form 990, Part III, Line 4a (continued) Kresevic v. Chittok. Karen Kresevic worked at Akron City Hospital during the pandemic.
Source: Form 990 for the year ending December 31, 2024, filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Rating method 2026.2. How we rate
Legitimacy checks
Is it registered with the IRS? Passed.
Listed in the IRS master file of tax-exempt organizations as a 501(c)(3) charitable organization.
Source: Exempt Organizations Business Master File, Internal Revenue Service, file dated October 13, 2026.
Has the IRS revoked its tax-exempt status? Passed.
Not on the IRS automatic revocation list.
Source: Automatic revocation of exemption list, Internal Revenue Service, file dated October 13, 2026.
Are donations tax-deductible? Passed.
On the IRS list of organizations eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions.
Source: Publication 78 data: organizations eligible for tax-deductible contributions, Internal Revenue Service, file dated October 13, 2026.
Is it keeping up with its IRS filings? Passed.
Most recent return on file covers the year ending December 2024.
Source: Exempt Organizations Business Master File, Internal Revenue Service, file dated October 13, 2026.
How long has it been tax-exempt? Passed.
Recognized by the IRS since January 1990.
Source: Exempt Organizations Business Master File, Internal Revenue Service, file dated October 13, 2026.
Is it in good standing with state regulators? Passed.
Not on California's list of charities barred from soliciting. Other states are not yet checked.
Source: May Not Operate or Solicit for Charitable Purposes list, California Attorney General, Registry of Charities and Fundraisers, file dated October 21, 2026.
Ratings and checks are our reading of public records, using the published method. They are not a statement about anyone's honesty. If you work for this organization, you can send corrections or results, confirm you want gifts through Veridonate, or ask to be removed from giving.