It reminds me of all the pundits and politicians who wanted to discount the Bush administration's energy plan or the Clinton administrations' healthcare federalization proposals based upon who participated in the secret meetings to formulate them rather than on the obvious horrors the plans themselves embodied.

    I have never understood why so many responsible people can fall for the well-known red herring fallacy of trashing a plan or an argument based on who funded it, or the ad hominem fallacy, attacking the people instead of  the ideas. These are basic, well-known logical fallacies, so their very use calls into question the users' motivations for employing them instead of addressing the ideas, information or arguments themselves. 

    If the initiators of an information-dissemination project are the producers of the funding, are we supposed to believe that the recipients of their money changed their views to get it?  Since finding experts who already share the producers' views is NOT difficult for competent people, I always think the accusers are projecting their own ethical failings and lack of principles onto their targets.  In other words, since THEY would change THEIR views if they were paid enough, they assume anyone else would.

    Those who know damn well they would never change their positions on a matter of principle, nomatter how much they're offered, have no problem imagining how others can be just like themselves.  Likewise, those who know damn well they would, not only have no problem imagining how others can be just like themselves, they often have psychological defense mechanisms against imagining how anyone else could actually stand on principle(!). Thus partisans on this issue are almost always the personal embodiments, the living manifestations, of their positions

    On the other hand, if the prime movers of an information-dissemination project are the ones with the information, rather than the ones with the financing, are we supposed to believe that honesty demands they finance their project by locating, and actually talking money out of, someone who disagrees with them, or who at least is indifferent?  Give me a break!  Rational people know damn well it would be natural for them to approach people whose viewpoints were similar and who might even become enthusiastic enough about the project to cough up some dough (duh).

    Or else are we supposed to assume that only commercials filmed on a shoestring can possibly be truthful (which would be based on yet another group of logical fallacies)? 

    Fundamentally, all these attacks are absurd.

    Arguments about issues should stick to the facts, as attacks on the people involved are not only irrelevant, but betray a lack of confidence on the parts of the attackers in their ability to persuade anyone on the basis of facts and logic.  Such attacks may even be a sign that they know damn well they're wrong.  Instead of accepting their charges at face value, I instantly suspect those who attack people -- instead of their arguments -- of fraud or incompetence (or both), and I encourage you to do the same.

"Policy advocates who cannot understand, or are unwilling to believe, that holders of opposing viewpoints can do so for good reasons and virtuous motives, have usually NOT done enough of their OWN homework on all the relevant aspects of the issue at hand.  Sometimes they even have really stupid reasons or malevolent motives for their own viewpoints as well." -- Bert Rand

"A person who indulges in ad hominem attacks instead of addressing another's ideas, has in effect conceded intellectual defeat."-- Bevin Chu, antiwar.com, Oct. 22, 1999

"It's far easier to support people who agree with you than to bribe people to do your bidding." --  Brian Doherty, ReasonOnline, May 6, 2003.

"Research shows that while people underestimate the influence of self-interest on their own judgments and decisions, they overestimate its influence on others." -- Daniel Gilbert, PhD

 “The conspiracy theory is the bastion of shadows and little or no evidence. It explains a famous or known event by appealing to the leftist dictum of  'follow the money' or 'look who benefits' as if actual evidence is irrelevant and personal ethics are just a farcical way for the rich and powerful to pull the wool over the eyes of everyone else.” -- Alexander Marriott

"Those who insist on 'following the money' ALWAYS imply that EVERYONE takes a position on something based upon whether he is paid or not.  Guess what THAT means about THEM -- they who work so hard to avoid discussing the existence of people who act on principle alone?  Go ahead, guess!  I DARE YOU!" -- Bert Rand