Fighting Bob and Diamond Jim: Peas in a Pod

Fighting Bob LaFollette was a dirty politician. As dirty as they come. At least, that’s what Ed Garvey says.

Not in so many words, of course. But still.

Garvey, the über-liberal leader of Wisconsin’s “progressive” faction and curator of the FightingBob.com website, wrote the following, just a few days ago:

“Spivak & Bice report that the liquor wholesalers have ‘contributed’ $45,000 to (Governor) Jim Doyle's campaign. Officials from General Beverage in Madison have ‘given’ Jim Doyle $34,000 since 2000.

At the Milwaukee People's Legislature on Saturday, the group enthusiastically argued that ‘contributions’ or ‘gifts’ to candidates or incumbents should be labeled as ‘bribes.’

…

A bribe is given to convince a public official to vote a certain way to help the one who offers the bribe. But wait. Did the wholesalers give money to the governor for ‘good government,’ or do they have a particular agenda?”

Just to fill in the blanks, a measure in Governor Doyle’s proposed state budget is, apparently, favorable to those same wholesalers. Spivak and Bice suggest a quid pro quo. Garvey concurs.

Far be it from me to defend “Diamond Jim” Doyle from this accusation. His infamous flip-flops on Indian casinos were nearly as blatant as the hundreds of thousands of dollars Wisconsin’s tribes – the ones that own casinos, anyway – spent promoting his candidacy for governor.

And I certainly can’t fault Garvey for asking the question: did the wholesalers get something for their money? I’d like an answer to that, myself.

That is the crux of the matter, after all. Would the Governor have supported the wholesalers’ budget measure if they hadn’t given him money?

To Garvey and his followers, the question is beside the point. Doyle’s guilty. The fact of a contribution itself is enough to convict.

Just for fun, let’s apply Garvey’s calculus to another example. Just pick one at random…oh, let’s say…the 1912 campaign for President.

That year was a wild one for the Republican Party. The incumbent President, William Howard Taft (a Republican), was widely considered a disappointing failure, especially within the party’s Progressive wing.

Those early Progressives were led by none other than Wisconsin’s Robert M. “Fighting Bob” LaFollette who, naturally, became their choice to run against and hopefully unseat Taft, and to breathe real power into the Progressive movement.

So LaFollette ran. If not for Teddy Roosevelt’s late decision to enter the fray as another Progressive candidate, he may well have won both the nomination and the Presidency.

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 know what you’re thinking. LaFollette was as clean as the inside of a bottle of bleach. Suggesting otherwise is blasphemy in Wisconsin. He was the epitome of integrity in government – a man who spent his life pursuing what he thought was right, even though the path to power and glory was open to him, had he only compromised a little more.

And just a few minutes of Googling reveals that all of those above-named contributors are fondly remembered for their liberal (sometimes even socialistic), progressive, conservationist ideals and work.

But they were also rich, influential men, accustomed to comfort and power. They weren’t simply throwing their money at a symbolic-but-losing candidacy. No Quixotic charges at windmills here – men like that don’t follow hopeless causes. In 1911 and even early 1912, a LaFollette victory – and Presidency – was entirely possible.

And if he had won, he’s have owed those men…what?

Don’t blame me. I’m just applying Garvey’s logic.

Again, I’m not about to defend Doyle. I also wonder if I'm expecting a foolish amount of consistency, but if Garvey’s going to convict him on the basis of five-figure contributions, what does he say about those six-figure contributions – monthly six-figure contributions – to LaFollette?

Anything? Anything at all?