confusion at the C-J and with Barefoot & Progressive

In the last 24 hours, two points of confusion-- from the C-J editoralists and Barefoot and Progressive-- about Jim Bunning's charitable activity.

Here's the C-J, on Bunning's scheduled visit to sports card show in Michigan...

Mr. Bunning was going to Michigan to sign cards for $35 and bats for $55 per -- and he was going to make these pitches after he voted against the bailout for the Big Three automakers -- which are, uh, based in Michigan. In short, Mr. Bunning was going to charge Michiganders bucks for his signature when he wouldn't put his signature to a bill that would have lent them bucks to save jobs and perhaps an industry.

Ironic? Yes. A problem? No. One signature involved Bunning aiding and abetting in taking your money to give to bankrupt companies-- bad management, greedy unions, and relatively wealthy share-holders. The other signature was his part in voluntary, mutually beneficial trades. The C-J's confusion over the difference between the two types of transactions is amazing.

And here's Barefoot and Progressive (sic), citing John Cheves without providing a link (so far)...

U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., set up a charitable foundation in 1996, the year he entered baseball’s Hall of Fame. Every year since, he has been the fund’s biggest recipient.

The non-profit Jim Bunning Foundation, which collects the money the former pitcher gets from autographing baseball memorabilia, has taken in more than $504,000, Senate and tax records show.

Of that, Bunning has earned $180,000 in salary for working a reported hour a week.

By contrast, the foundation has given $136,435, or about one-fourth of its income, to churches and charitable groups around Northern Kentucky. The largest sums went to local Catholic churches Bunning has attended.

Records show that Bunning is the foundation’s sole employee and the only person to draw a paycheck from it.

The numbers don't add up, so the post (or the initial report) are unnecessarily unclear. What happened to the rest of the money? We don't know whether he gave away 27% or 64% of his autograph earnings.

Beyond that, the only question I'd have is whether it's legal to use your own charitable foundation to pay yourself. It seems a little odd-- and certainly would be cheesy if he's working that angle to promote himself. But absent that, giving away 27% or 64% is laudable and a whole lot more than we usually see from politicians, especially prominent Democrats. To note: What have Gore, Clinton, Biden and Obama given to charity?