Two Plus Two Equals Four, Ed

Ed Garvey still has a little trouble putting two and two together. Here's what he wrote in his latest blog post over at Fighting Bob:

What a week!

We lost Bill Proxmire and paused to recall the days when one could seek office without spending a fortune. Sad to say, but Gene McCarthy, Prox, Gaylord and Hubert would probably not run for office today. The tin cup in hand would get in the way.

Why, I wonder, did the "tin cup in hand" not get in the way back when that list of worthies were in office?

Here's my theory: they could raise large amounts from a few people, instead of having to spend lots of time and effort raising money from lots of people.

Consider this from last week's George Will column on the late Sen. Eugene McCarthy:

McCarthy's insurgency, the most luminous memory of many aging liberals, would today be impossible -- criminal, actually -- thanks to the recent ``reform'' most cherished by liberals, the McCain-Feingold campaign regulations. McCarthy's audacious challenge to an incumbent president was utterly dependent on large early contributions from five rich liberals. Stewart Mott's $210,000 would be more than $1.2 million in today's dollars. McCain-Feingold codifies two absurdities: large contributions are inherently evil, and political money can be limited without limiting political speech. McCain-Feingold criminalizes the sort of seed money that enabled McCarthy to be heard. Under McCain-Feingold's current limit of $2,100 per contributor, McCarthy's top five contributors combined could have given just $10,500, which in 1968 dollars would have been just $1,834.30. But, then, McCain-Feingold was written by incumbents to protect what they cherish: themselves.

I had a similar comment about Fighting Bob LaFollette in one of my previous columns:

Running for President, then as now, requires money, and LaFollette received his share of help on that score. As he himself wrote in "LaFollette’s Autobiography":

“The two Pinchots and Kent had each furnished a contribution of $10,000… Crane was contributing $5,000 a month, and had agreed to continue his payments monthly until the time of the meeting of the National Convention in Chicago.”

That’s Amos and Gifford Pinchot, who were born to wealth on the East Coast; and Congressman William Kent, from California. Adjusted for inflation, their $10,000 contributions would be worth $200,000 in today’s dollars.

That’s $200,000 each.

Charles Crane, whose family owned manufacturing interests in Chicago, was giving the equivalent of $100,000 a month.

I won't hold my breath waiting for Garvey to lambaste McCarthy and LaFollette for taking such big donations - donations Garvey today would call obvious proof of corruption.