I'm confronted by this on several issues - showing a connection between an author and any organization the debater doesn't like automatically negates the entire article, including all data from any source whatsoever.

And the debater, of course, will never budge from their rock-solid premise that the people providing the data on their side have absolutely no ulterior motives at all, like taking control of vast amounts of wealth and power.

Usually I roll with this, which makes a lot more work for me. The Heritage Foundation is a tremendous resource for information, but I usually try to cut through them to baseline sources so that the information isn't dismissed out of hand because it comes from the "wrong" people. In this case, the post was addressed to someone I didn't think I had to do that for.

If you have a problem with the actual data or its sources, say so. But that would be a lot more work than simply blowing it off, wouldn't it?