Under the guise of journalism, this platform pushes a narrative that benefits its benefactors and court-packing advocates.
ProPublica, a news website funded by far-left billionaires, has been relentlessly launching attacks on Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. But when examined more closely, this media outlet seems less like a purveyor of unbiased journalism and more like a tactical weapon utilized by affluent liberal financiers with a clear motive to reform the Supreme Court to their liking.
On the surface, ProPublica targets conservative justices, its offensive gaining particular momentum following the controversial overturning of Roe v. Wade last year. Beneath this, though, it is more than just a news organization. "ProPublica isn't a news organization; it's a front group for liberal billionaires wanting to ensure that the court rubber stamps their political agenda," Judicial Crisis Network President Carrie Severino told the Washington Examiner.
Mike Davis, founder and president of the Article III Project, added weight to this observation, stating "ProPublica has been in the business of launching partisan attacks on conservative Supreme Court justices for months now, and it shouldn’t surprise anyone given their funding from left-wing groups," These attacks range from disclosing personal information about Justices Thomas and Alito to lending credence to their narratives through left-leaning 'ethics experts.'
Critics are contending that the escalating ethics debates and attacks on the Supreme Court are a product of progressive political strategy, stemming from a lack of success in their policy agendas. These critics claim that progressives are knowingly and brazenly pushing forward initiatives that blatantly overstep constitutional boundaries.
The objective, critics argue, is not to successfully pass these legally dubious initiatives, but to use the inevitable backlash and overturning by the Supreme Court as fuel for igniting public outcry and manipulating public sentiment. They suggest this tactic is a deliberate ploy to paint the Supreme Court as an obstructionist entity, while simultaneously keeping the progressive agenda in the limelight, irrespective of the constitutional validity of their proposals.
ProPublica was conceived by the Sandler Foundation in 2007, a well-known funder of left-wing causes. This foundation, implicated in the 2008 housing market crash, has invested nearly $40 million into ProPublica since 2010.
This funding isn't just about supporting journalism. As Parker Thayer, an investigative researcher, reveals, "The same Sandler Foundation that 'made ProPublica possible'... also gave $500,000 to Demand Justice." Demand Justice, known for its smear campaigns against conservative justices, is a 'dark money' group that is a notable advocate for court-packing.
Moreover, the Sandler Foundation's funding is intricately woven into a web of left-wing, dark money nonprofit groups that all align with this court-packing narrative, including the Campaign Legal Center and the American Constitution Society.
This pattern of funding uncovers ProPublica's links with groups pushing for a 'packed' Supreme Court. This raises fundamental questions about ProPublica's credibility as a neutral news source and throws light on its alignment with court-packing advocacy groups.
With these revelations in mind, some may question the authenticity of ProPublica's 'non-partisan' journalism and its covert alignment with court-packing advocacy groups.