One of the biggest voices on the opposite side of the political spectrum from Coolidge in 1924-1925 was Robert La Follette, who ended up running as a third-party candidate in the election of 1924. He was a holdover from the Progressive Era of the earlier 20th century, which promoted the idea of a more activist, energetic federal government that could intervene in business and economic policy.

By the time of the 1924 election, the ideas of the Progressive Era weren't nearly as popular as they'd been before World War I, so La Follette didn't do so well. And by "didn't so so well," we mean he got all of 13 electoral votes. Still, he was well-known throughout the country as the remaining champion of Progressive policies.

In this article, La Follette tackles the topic of utilities. There'd been debate over how much the government should own or control utilities, and of course Coolidge was firmly on the "as little government as possible" side. La Follette here argues the opposite, saying that water power should be developed by the government, not private utility companies.

He cites the example of the Canadian government developing power from Niagara Falls over the past 20 years as a great example. Apparently, "During the days of private ownership Canadian residents paid from 7 to 12 cents per kilowatt hour […] whereas the residence charge for light in twelve of the large cities varied in 1923 from 1.1 cents to 2.6 cents" (source). Why should Canadians get all the cheap health care—oops, we mean electricity—when New York is right across the river?

So basically, power was cheaper under this government-owned system, which challenged the claims that competition between private companies was what kept prices low.

La Follette also brings up the subject of graft or corruption, which he sees as another downside of relying on private companies. His example here is the Panama Canal, a government project, which he says "was built without graft and was being operated without graft" (source). He admits that government corruption is possible, but when it's the government that's corrupt, the whole thing is much more out in the open. And those corrupt people can get voted out of office.

The private vs. public ownership argument wasn't a new one in American politics. But this article helps illustrate the rapid shift from the Progressive Era to the 1920s, and how radically different ideas about the role of government could be.