Street Money - a Campaign Conundrum?
Call me naive - but I was unaware that things worked in some places as discussed below. Guess its just the way things have been done in the places I've lived.
I've stumbled upon an interesting article that does an excellent job of positing two sides of a situation that raised my eyebrows a bit. One can easily see the paradox that arises as goes the Obama philosophy - or maybe - just one of the integral thrusts of his message of changing politics. One also easily empathizes with the people who may feel short-shrifted if the Obama campaign does not concede the issue.
From the article:
How does Obama best deal with this idea that would seem to run contrary to one of his main themes? I personally would not begrudge him if he relented, not because I favor his candidacy - but primarily for some of the reasons regarding the economic despair noted by the author. On the other hand - think how much more expensive campaigns if this mode of operation became far more prevalent than it already is.
If you think there are a lot more people who are also unaware of this conundrum or this reality of campaigning in some hard luck areas in a few cities - do recommend it.
I've stumbled upon an interesting article that does an excellent job of positing two sides of a situation that raised my eyebrows a bit. One can easily see the paradox that arises as goes the Obama philosophy - or maybe - just one of the integral thrusts of his message of changing politics. One also easily empathizes with the people who may feel short-shrifted if the Obama campaign does not concede the issue.
From the article:
The dispute centers on the dispensing of "street money," a long-standing Philadelphia ritual in which candidates deliver cash to the city's Democratic operatives in return for getting out the vote.A little further into the article comes this paragraph
Flush with payments from well-funded campaigns, the ward leaders and Democratic Party bosses typically spread out the cash in the days before the election, handing $10, $20 and $50 bills to the foot soldiers and loyalists who make up the party's workforce.
It is all legal -- but Obama's people are telling the local bosses he won't pay.
That sets up a cultural clash, pitting a candidate who promises to transform American politics against the realities of a local political system important to his presidential hopes. Pennsylvania holds its primary on April 22.
"This is a machine city, and ward leaders have to pay their committee people," Campbell said. "Barack Obama's campaign doesn't pay workers, and I guarantee you if they don't put up some money for those street workers, those leaders will most likely take Clinton money. It won't stop him [Obama] from winning Philadelphia, but he won't come out with the numbers that he needs" to win the state.Before you up and comment - please read the entire article first. One more excerpt:
A neutral observer, state Rep. Dwight Evans, whose district is in northwest Philadelphia, said there may be a racial subtext to the dispute. Ward leaders, he said, see Obama airing millions of dollars worth of television ads in the city -- money that benefits largely white station owners, feeding resentment. People wonder why Obama isn't sharing the largesse with the largely African American field workers trying to get him elected, Evans said.You get some of the picture from these excerpts, the article is a fairly well written quick read.
How does Obama best deal with this idea that would seem to run contrary to one of his main themes? I personally would not begrudge him if he relented, not because I favor his candidacy - but primarily for some of the reasons regarding the economic despair noted by the author. On the other hand - think how much more expensive campaigns if this mode of operation became far more prevalent than it already is.
If you think there are a lot more people who are also unaware of this conundrum or this reality of campaigning in some hard luck areas in a few cities - do recommend it.
Advertisement
This is interesting, we certainly don't do it this way in my state... as far as I know.
Looks a lot like the day labor system of hiring in construction from the description in the exerpts.
Since he's refusing to engage in it... is it unique to Philly, have they done it in past Presidential elections or just local/state ones? More specifically, did he pay in Chicago?
I think your point about the economic hardships of the locals is valid... but didn't he win election on the South Side of Chicago?
Now I understand Chris Matthews sly smile when mentioning Pennsylvania politics - why hasn't more been said about this?
From the article
"Carol Ann Campbell, a ward leader and Democratic superdelegate who supports Obama, estimated that the amount of street money Obama would need to lay out for election day is $400,000 to $500,000."
Wow.
Hypothetically, if Hillary wins PA by a good amount - thereby claiming 'momentum' would the states that vote after view it as such if they knew about this system?
April 11, 2008 2:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah - pretty crazy huh? I mean when Tweety (Mathews) kept saying its an "old machine" town - I kept thinking that maybe in a certain sort of sense - of an air of sorts. But hell - he really meant it.
April 11, 2008 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I always thought walking around moneywas a myth. I have heard it spoken about in past elections and this is first time I have seen it mentioned in print.
April 11, 2008 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just thought of a way that Hillary could redeem herself in my eyes (hold tight, this one's a doozy)...
She could provide the street money for HER campaign AND Obama's, thereby doubling the money people who need it could earn on election day - she could say, 'No matter how you vote, I still feel your pain'.
Boy that alone could turn the whole election, I mean what better way to be sincere than back it up with cash!
Shit, I just realized that someone in her campaign might take my advice - oh well, I hope I get credited for it - I'll still vote Obama.
April 11, 2008 3:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the LA times article is confusing to me. Is the idea that campaign volunteers expect to be paid hard cold cash? And if they don't get it, they'll work for Clinton instead? Is this blackmail?
Has Obama done this anywhere else?
April 11, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is a contentious point to be sure. The article notes that it is also commonly done in Chicago, but I don't recall anyone mentioning it before the Illinois primary. Of course he was popular there anyhow...
So it does run counter to his general philosophy - or at least what some perceive that to be.
You can't really call it blackmail, unless quid-pro-quo is demanded... or else.
It seems however that the argument to do it, is compelling in certain contexts. And for some people - all they care about, is money - now - in their hands - you give me 25 bucks, I'll mow your lawn.
With the mayor there behind Clinton, it's not an easy call.
I'd recommend he concede the issue, though it rubs rough, the ugly reality is, is that it is a machine town. In a way it makes you question the integrity of Mayor Nutter, if he supports her - is there an unseemly quid-pro-quo agreement there, too?
He also attacked Rev Wright - quite readily and harshly - knowing DAMN WELL that similar expressions of resentment have run rampant throughout his city for years, that much I do know about Philly.
April 11, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do get both sides here but I still find this so odd, and I had no idea (and spent the first 25 years of my life in PA) this was the norm in Philly.
This bothered me:
It just seems like you could ask them and leave it up to them to decide.
And the whole things just sounds like...a recipe for corruption.
April 11, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think for many of the cities mentioned in the article the corruption recipe has already been baked and put for sale in the bakery window.
In my opinion - this kind of 'walking around money' thing is on the surface less corrupt than the possible - legislative/administrative appointment - its loyalty for one day... I'm always wondering what new group of incompetents are being promised posts in the new administration - just because they helped get someone elected.
The bean counter in me does wonder if ANY records are kept on the disbursement of this cash - how does anyone know the ward leaders aren't pocketing 1,000's or 10's of 1000's of it?
April 11, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! I worked in presidential campaigns in the 70s and did not ever see us paying walk around money. Maybe that is why we lost.
I will say that I think we should pay nominal costs for volunteers who are traveling around different states for the campaign. Plus, we should feed and house all volunteers. If they are local the same thing goes.
April 11, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh. I'm surprised this is legal, but even so... "legal" doesn't always mean "right."
Maybe the Obama campaign should continue to refuse to pay (on the reasons given--that this isn't the kind of campaign they're running). Then if they lose PA (and most agree they're likely to lose), they've got a rather noble reason for losing. Especially if Hillary is paying money, she looks like an old-school corrupt politician.
I wonder if there's a different, still-legal way to get some of the campaign money into the economically depressed neighborhoods.
April 11, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink