Main image
25th February
2014
written by Sean Noble

A common refrain I heard from friends this last week or so was “if you are taking flack, you know you are over the target.”

In this case, “flack” was a 7,000 word hit piece on me (along with my company and 501c4 organizations with which I’m associated) by a liberal non-profit called ProPublica.  ProPublica was founded by Herbert Sandler, a left-wing banker at the center of the housing crisis, as described by the New York Times:

At the center of the controversy is an exotic but popular mortgage the Sandlers pioneered that helped generate billions of dollars of revenue at their bank. Known as an option ARM — and named “Pick-A-Pay” by World Savings — it is now seen by an array of housing analysts and regulators as the Typhoid Mary of the mortgage industry.

He made billions selling his bank to Wachovia before the housing meltdown, making him the very definition of “evil billionaire.” (Other liberal billionaires like George Soros and Tom Steyer have also supported ProPublica).

Inexplicably, five days after the ProPublica piece was posted on their website, The Arizona Republic ran it as a front page, tabloid-style story. It was a complete “cut and paste” job from ProPublica, and even though the Republic is my hometown paper, they never called me for comment.

There is something a bit surreal about walking out to your driveway and seeing yourself staring you in the eye.  The nearly life-size photo on the front page caused one colleague to remark, “That’s a head shot size usually reserved for Presidents or terrorist leaders.”  I’m clearly not the President.

The Republic did allow me to publish a response. However, after publishing 7,000 words attacking me, they only allowed 550 for my response. That’s ok – you can read a more full response here.

Here are a few highlights from my response in the Republic:

I firmly believe that anonymous political speech is not a danger to our nation — it has played an important role throughout our history. Anonymity in political speech protects the speaker from retribution, but it also serves a greater good: It allows the public to listen to ideas without any bias toward the messenger.

***

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 Republic is my hometown paper; I’ve interacted with its staff regularly and always held them and the publication in high esteem. I was extremely disappointed by The Arizona Republic’s complete lack of journalistic integrity in this instance. The Republic made itself a willing tool of the left. That is a shame and a real disappointment to this lifelong reader.

The Founders would be appalled at this organized attack on political speech by the media (and the government). Consider this: the Federalist Papers were not only anonymously written, they were anonymously funded! Today, Madison, Jay and Hamilton would be castigated as “dark money.” Good grief!

Fundamentally, the Left’s attack on conservative speech is driven by fear.  The Left knows it can’t win the hearts and minds of the American public with their nanny-state mentality, so they have to change the subject away from the content of the speech and who is doing the speaking. Therefore, they attack.

I haven’t and won’t let attacks from the Left stop me from advancing the cause. It is disappointing that they have stooped to a level that includes airing personal issues related to my divorce. I’m not sure I’ve ever heard of a political operative (that is, a non-public official or non-candidate for office) having their divorce records exposed in the news media.

At the end of the day, I remain resolved to continue to fight for the freedoms endowed to us by our Creator, first and foremost among those being our First Amendment freedoms.

 

 

9 Comments

  1. Tom Richards
    25/02/2014

    You are as sleazy as they come in politics (that’s a high bar) and your “work” is a disgrace to the democratic process. Had no idea you were such a whiner.

  2. Tom Richards
    25/02/2014

    Wow. Our “Creator” endowed us with the First Amendment? Silly of me to think it was Founding Fathers. Must have missed that in my New Testament survey course in college. You’re not nearly as smart as you think.

  3. 25/02/2014

    F—–g Mormon

  4. MC
    25/02/2014

    “ProPublica hopes to bully CPPR and other conservative groups out of existence because we’ve been effective.”

    You might have had a point, except that the article presented facts and sourced information. Even if they were trying to attack you because they’re oh so scared of you, that doesn’t mean they were wrong. You didn’t refute anything in the ProPublica article. You just responded with more attacks.

    If you’re going to enter the shady side of politics, and deal with millions of dollars from anonymous donors, you’re going to have to realize that people will be not be happy with you, because you’re helping to put more political influence in the hands of the wealthy, and helping to give them an advantage over people with less money. Why you expect to conduct this kind of business without being criticized and scrutinized by the media, I have no idea.

    In any case, whether the attacks come from the left, or ProPublica, or whoever… if you don’t refute what they say, you’re essentially conceding that they are correct. My advice to you: If you want to make decent counter-arguments, focus on the argument itself, not on who made the argument.

  5. J.R.
    25/02/2014

    @Armand Winter (and anyone else resorting to name calling rather than actually commenting on the substance of this blog post): What on earth does his religion have to do with this? Or pairing his religion up with a half crossed out word that we all still know what you mean? Your comment is pointless and lacks merit other than to show that you clearly have no ability to independently analyze and critique this post, hence, you resort to calling someone an unnecessary name. Classy.

  6. LiberalsLackFacts
    25/02/2014

    I’m not sure I understand those complaining about Sean, or his blog post. This is his blog and he is free to say what he wants (thanks to our Constitution!!). Not one of you can tell me that if you fought everyday for something you believed in and then were attacked for it, you wouldn’t be defending yourself on your own blog.

    I wonder if MC took the time to read the link Sean includes when he writes, “That’s ok – you can read a more full response here.” Doubtful, or they’d see that indeed “facts” were refuted and new (actual) facts presented.

    I have zero problem with the work Sean is doing and probably continues to do. In my view, he is standing up for all of those that don’t have the political power, the money, or the drive to get the government to hear what WE THE PEOPLE would like our government to do, by using the resources of the wealthy. The poor, the middle class, and the wealthy care about the same issues. Some of them can afford to force our corrupt President Obama to listen to them and have chosen to spend their hard earned money fighting for those of us that can’t afford it. Why do you care what they spend their money on? You don’t. It’s because you might lose seats or a branch, and therefore, Progressive power. If Obama weren’t such a crony, maybe the type of work Sean seems to do wouldn’t be necessary. But, in my opinion, what it really comes down to is the fact that public unions and George Soros have been doing this for years… they are just irate that the Supreme Court upheld Citizens United, allowing non-profits to do it as well because now the free-market can stand up for those they disagree with.

    Please also take note of the fact that ProPublica (very, very briefly) points out that nothing he (or his company) is doing is illegal or being investigated. That’s all I need to know. They are just on a witch-hunt to tarnish someone that has the capability of matching and/or surpassing (which is their fear my guess) what they are already doing. The Left doesn’t want to be outnumbered, outspent, or called out– so they bully and provide the sheeple talking points that are divisive in order to get the sheep to buy into their garbage: hook, line, and sinker.

    Please find me an article that ProPublica (or any Leftist organization) has ever written willingly letting you know that public unions do this same stuff, and have been for years. At least these wealthy donors have the option of spending their money and aren’t told they have to contribute in order to keep their jobs or to get raises/benefits. What hypocrites. Sean, thank YOU for standing up for folks like me that have no ability to tell Obama that he is wrong!

  7. Tom Richards
    26/02/2014

    Speaking of liberals lacking facts: “The poor, the middle class, and the wealthy care about the same issues.” LOL. What planet are you living on? When public unions spend money we know it’s the unions, when the sleazy Noble spends money we have no idea where it comes from; that’s dangerous for democracy. Letting the wealthy take tax deductions for the millions they put in these dark money pits is not fair. If they want to donate, no problem, just don’t launder the money through a bogus nonprofit like Noble does.

  8. Tom Richards
    26/02/2014

    More bullshit from “liberalslackfacts: “Please also take note of the fact that ProPublica (very, very briefly) points out that nothing he (or his company) is doing is illegal or being investigated.”

    FACT: “California’s political watchdog, the Fair Political Practices Commission, has ordered “Kochtopus” front groups in Arizona that laundered campaign donations for two California political committees last year to forfeit the money to the state, and imposed fines totalling $1 million. Arizona GOP political consultant Sean Noble was the “Kochtopus” bag man for the Phoenix based Center to Protect Patient Rights, and is at the center of this political corruption.”

    Sean is not only sleazy, he’s lining his own pockets in the process.

  9. Tom Richards
    26/02/2014

Leave a Reply