Sean Noble's not taking the bait

The head of the Center to Protect Patient Rights refuses to accept ProPublica's insistence that he nail Jell-O to the wall to prove that the money his group receives from the Koch Foundation isn't "dark."

The ProPublica authors repeatedly use the term “dark money” so as to scandalize the Center to Protect Patient Rights and make legal and compliant activities seem improper. If the money were truly “dark,” these “reporters” and the public would not have broad access to information about the funds granted by CPPR and similar organizations. The public tax records referenced by ProPublica include significant details about organizational details, activities, priorities, and spending.

The truth, while much less intriguing than the tale woven by ProPublica, is that CPPR and the other non-profits mentioned in the article operate in full compliance with the law. Even the authors of the piece admit, “There’s no indication that Noble or the center are under scrutiny by authorities for violating tax or election laws.”

ProPublica hopes to bully CPPR and other conservative groups out of existence because we’ve been effective. Thanks to President Barack Obama’s mismanagement of the country, particularly the failure of “Obamacare,” liberals know they can’t win against us in a fair fight of issues and ideas.

Instead, the left must resort to intimidation. Their tactics include boycotts, threatening businesses, digging through divorce records to personally embarrass and hurt the families of those with whom they disagree, etc. But, before they can employ these methods, they need to know who to target. This is why they demand the disclosure of donors to conservative causes.

The best way for ProPublica and others to make this happen is by launching complaints about the political activities of non-profits. The true purpose of this piece wasn’t to scream for transparency on behalf of American voters. It was to attack me and taint the law-abiding work of all non-profits on the right. After all, if ProPublica really believed voters have a right to know who’s paying for political activity, they’d have the same concern for their readers and not rely so heavily on unnamed “sources.”

Noble's none too happy with the Arizona Republic for using the ProPublic piece as objective reporting, either.  Read the whole thing.