Paying PA Volunteers? Obama Says "No We Can't"

by: tremayne

Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:28


The Obama campaign's ethical stances are giving the Philly political machine fits. This from the LA Times:

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. 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.
The assumption by many quoted in the article is that these foot soldiers will work for Clinton instead.
Neither the Clinton nor the Obama campaign would say publicly whether it would comply with Philadelphia's street money customs. But an Obama aide said Thursday that it had never been the campaign's practice to make such payments. Rather, the campaign's focus is to recruit new people drawn to Obama's message, the aide said. The field operation "hasn't been about tapping long-standing political machinery," the aide said.

Obama's campaign has been grass-roots oriented and I would be surprised if this stance really costs him but many experts on PA politics think it will.

UPDATE: Didn't see it at first but diarist KevinH has more on this including a poll.
tremayne :: Paying PA Volunteers? Obama Says "No We Can't"

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Paying PA Volunteers? Obama Says "No We Can't" | 20 comments
It depends (0.00 / 0)
Not doing things the local way tends to turn out bad.

However party bosses tend to be for clinton and party bosses are the ones complaining that they aren't getting money.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com

These aren't volunteers (0.00 / 0)
These are basically paid political operatives. I think this issue is being overstated, but I don't live in Philly so can't say for sure. But in a high turnout primary like this, I think "street money" will be a much small factor than in low turnout elections.

I mean, how many of these operatives are there? How many voters do they turn out, on average? Maybe Obama's folks have crunched the numbers and decided it wasn't a good investment.  We've seen plenty of instances where paid-for operatives do a much worse job of turning out the vote than excited volunteers.

thanks for the h/t (0.00 / 0)
My diary is less about the political strategy (as one commenter noted, Obama bucked the 'street money' tradition in SC and won by huge numbers), but rather how this fits into our larger conception of campaign reform, as well as how middle- and upper-middle class progressives think about money and people on the ground.
progressive infrastructure (4.00 / 1)
There is a big problem if Obama is pushing towards "no money for feet"; a huge problem I see for the progressives and the left in general is that much of their work is unpaid or "internship" based -- and yet, in order to get involved, move up, that's where you need to begin.

Put it another way: "the progressive movement's a great place to work if your parents can afford to send you there" -- this is causing us great problems compared to the right, who seem more willing to pay down the ladder, and who can thus recruit and retain some of the smartest people who may not have the time and money to spare "for the cause".

Where are you getting that? (0.00 / 0)
The right wing's money for recruiting and retaining people has nothing to do with dumping cash into city political machines on election day.
[ Parent ]
a general point (0.00 / 0)
If you strip away your rhetoric about "dumping cash" and "political machines", I don't really see what your point is. Money is money; it can be used more or less wisely, but in the end if you're skimping on money for feet on the ground -- in favor of concentrating it higher up -- it is a problem.
[ Parent ]
Unless you have your own feet on the ground and don't need to (0.00 / 0)
us the "political machine." I'm sure the Obama campaign is savvy enough to make calculations about this and maybe for each dollar of payola to the "way-it's-done machine" he might be able to instead pay a hired staffer or buy materials for a volunteer who will get out more votes and be more enthusiastic about supporting Obama than some political fat cat collecting on his kickbacks.

Either way, in light of a Democratic Congress who has just played ball with the powers that be (especially with regard to Iraq, oversight, and investigating serious crimes of the Bush administration), I'm sure many people find it both hopeful and refreshing that someone is actually bypassing the business-as-usual that has tainted our political system with payola to the point of turning politicians into money-crack political K-street whores willing to turn a trick for their donor fix.

Help support "CRASHING THE STATES"--a Netroots Film!

[ Parent ]
well, that's the question (0.00 / 0)
What is Obama doing instead? Is he redirecting that money to pay people on the ground? I am making a point, by the way, that I think you missed; it's not just a question of getting feet on the ground but a question of paying them.

Also: "bypassing the business-as-usual that has tainted our political system with payola to the point of turning politicians into money-crack political K-street whores willing to turn a trick for their donor fix." -- rhetoric much? If you think people getting paid to do GOTV turns them into money-crack whores, gosh what do you think of them when they volunteer?

[ Parent ]
You misread my statement (0.00 / 0)
"...to the point of turning politicians into money-crack political K-street whores" - I'm not talking about the those of us at the bottom of the chain who are volunteering or otherwise participating because of our feelings towards a candidate.

And I'm not against volunteers getting reimbursed - or paid as staffers. What I am against is there being some structure whereby if you want to do politics in my neighborhood, you have to pay me, and then I can give that money out like the candy man to get others to do what they could do directly through your organization in the first place. Why do we need middlemen who 'traditionally' get kickbacks that they get to disburse as they want to in exchange for political "loyalty" that teeters on the teat of payola? That sounds exactly like the way we hand out money to local politicians in Iraq to get local action (aside from what they 'forget' in their pockets). If that's the system you defend, gosh - what do you think of real democracy where people listen to their consciouses rather than neighborhood political bosses?

Help support "CRASHING THE STATES"--a Netroots Film!

[ Parent ]
middlemen... (0.00 / 0)
By definition, the middle men are not at the top of the chain. They're somewhere in the middle. Are those the money-crack whores you're talking about?
[ Parent ]
I'm talking about ANY politician who acts on behalf of a payment (0.00 / 0)
they receive and because of that payment. If a neighborhood political leader would get people out for Obama because the Obama campaign gave them money, or if that same person would get people out for Clinton because the Clinton campaign gave them money, and the only thing dictating who they would get people out for was a payment from a candidate, then YES - THEY ARE TURNING TRICKS FOR THAT MONEY.

If I were to go to a campaign as an individual and say "hey, if you give me a hundred dollars I'll get some of my friends to support you by giving them some of that money but if you don't I'll go to your opponent, and if they pay me I'll get my friends to support them instead" then anyone who is doing something they would not otherwise do (including supporting one candidate over another solely because of some kickback) is whoring out there vote and support.

Obviously, the whole system is built on this, gaining in payola by an order of magnitude each time you get closer to the summit of power - which is why we desperately need public financing to end all the influence of "free speech" payola that has every other politician acting on behalf of whoever pays them the most. This is just the lowest level of it short of actually buying individual voters' votes.

Help support "CRASHING THE STATES"--a Netroots Film!

[ Parent ]
My point (0.00 / 0)
My point is that you seem to be arguing that if Obama isn't in favor of one specific use of money -- one which many people view as at least borderline corrupt -- then somehow that means he's opposed to any use of money. "Street money" doesn't seem to be related in any way to the building of a progressive infrastructure, but you've chosen to treat Obama's rejection of it as a wide-ranging opposition to building such infrastructure.

If there's something that right-wing campaigns are doing to build infrastructure that you think progressives should be emulating, then be specific about it. And if you have reason to believe Obama is opposed to whatever it is, then be specific about those reasons.

[ Parent ]
sorry (0.00 / 0)
I should have been more clear. I am not saying this particular choice is wrong, I am saying that if it's a trend in Obama's campaign to rely heavily on volunteers in preference to paid positions, I think it's a bad thing, and a bad thing that a lot of progressive movements share.

I don't have an opinion either way about this particular choice, although I'd say that one could equally well rephrase "dumping cash into a political machine" as "reenforcing allied institutions".

[ Parent ]
Prospects (0.00 / 0)
You seem to be implying that there's some kind of career future in being an election-day-only GOTV operative. I get the impression that this money goes to either local committee members or local people without necessarily any prior connection to the campaign or even the Democratic party beyond voting (and maybe not even that). I don't think that the folks that get $50 in exchange for handing out flyers or giving rides on election day are all looking for a career in politics.
[ Parent ]
well... (0.00 / 0)
I'm not sure you know the opposite is true either. If the GOTV people were all volunteers, we'd all be saying "oh great, we're getting people involved in politics!" The problem is that if you rely on volunteers, the people you're "getting involved in politics" tend to be a smaller slice of the pie -- the slice that can take a couple hours and work for free.
[ Parent ]
street money - video (0.00 / 0)
Great little video blog on street money in South Carolina-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

that poster (0.00 / 0)
Boy I want that poster.  Anybody got a clue of how to get one?
[ Parent ]
As Ben Smith points out (0.00 / 0)
Hillary paying the machine in largely black wards to turn out the vote is likely only to turn out more Obama voters.  The machine can't control who people vote for in something like this, in the way that they can for low information local races.

The worst outcome for Obama (which may not be all that bad) is for Clinton not to pay them, either, and for the machine to sit on its hands and not help either of them.  The machine going in for Hillary just means that Hillary is paying to get out the vote for Obama.  Which would be amusing, but not particularly helpful for her.

Paying people is ok, but paying machines is bad. (4.00 / 1)
I've ran a couple of GOTV operations, some with volunteers, some with "paid volunteers," and some with "walking money" going to the local machine.

In my experience, true "volunteers" will work harder and be more committed-- no surprise there.  

The paid machine operatives were pretty useless.  There was little accountability, and in the fog of GOTV, it took too much staff time to supervise them to make sure that our "walking money" was actually being put to use on the streets.

A more effective system, especially in down-ballot races where we couldn't gin up the massive volunteer base that an Obama can, was to pay folks, but to get them from trusted sources.  For example, where I live, the AFL-CIO, especially the building trades, have long lists of laid-off members, and the local union rep can call up the most reliable folks.

This last system builds progressive infrastructure because it:
a) keeps the money out of the hands of the machine, which is not necessarily about our issues, but rather its own power
b) builds credibility for the unions-- still looking out for their members even after they're laid off
c) puts money into the hands of folks who may not be able to afford to be a true "volunteer."  
d) gets more work done.

Still, the best option is to "reward" local super-volunteers with a couple of days of paid work.

Otherwise, I have no ethical qualms with augmenting your field work with some paid folks.  As long as everything is accountable and transparent.  All things being equal, I'd much rather spend money on people, who learn skills and become better activists, than on media.

Can You Say "Hypocrite"? (0.00 / 0)
Because if you can it means that you see through the Orwellian doublspeak exhibited by BIG O and his followers.

It's okay for him to "pay" staffers and others to come in and get votes, but it's not okay to pay the locals. Why? It makes a great story!

And since most people don't look beyond the story, they never hear this; and they never hear about BIG O's financial support from Wall Street, subprime mortgage lenders, oil companies, registered lobbyists, and former lobbyists who are now bundlers.

But BIG O's followers would just as soon cover their eyes and ears to his blatant hypocrisy, lack of respect for anybody but the academically well-heeled, his preening arrogance, and his "misstatements" over everyhing from his campaign contributions to his voting record.

Paying PA Volunteers? Obama Says "No We Can't" | 20 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox