After sifting through the absolutely horrifying stories about the Chinese earthquake and the refusal of the Burmese junta to let aid workers aid, it was a relief to get to the domestic politics section of the New York Times this morning.

There, however, I came across an article (buried back on page A18), A Usually Legal Practice That Wears Black Eyes that struck me as a little bit funny, a little bit sad, and as a big reminder about why Obama and his campaign are valuably different.

Basically, it's a story of the Clinton campaign's reliance on "street money" or "walking around money."  The humor is that, in a move reminiscent of the plan to pay bloggers for pro-Clinton posts,  the Clinton campaign essentially has to buy its support -- and it still lost.  (Even if such measures -- and/or Obama's refusal to engage in them -- made the difference in Texas and Pennsylvania.)

Now that the specter of Street money has raised its ugly head again, I thought I would reprint what I wrote about it after the South Carolina Primary. Obama is doing something very courageous here. Spread the word.

The article is reposted after the jump in its entirety.

According to the L.A. Times, Obama's PA campaign might be lost, if he doesn't pay the "Street Money" required to get-out-the-vote.

The Obama Campaign has made a habit of not distributing "street money" to ward leaders in previous elections, and they've said they don't plan to do so in Pennsylvania, either.

Yes, we all know that by now.

To some, it sounds like a moral victory simply on the grounds of not filtering hundreds of thousands of dollars contributed by individual donors down to GOTV workers who end up with only $10 or $20. To others, it sounds like callous disregard for how hard life is in Philadelphia's poor neighborhoods and how valuable the ward volunteers' work is.

You might be surprised, though, to know what the Obama campaign has done in Pennsylvania in the four weeks since the last primary. Join me below the fold to find out.

This new issue of "street money" in Pennsylvania is slightly troubling. From reported sources, we hear that if Obama does not cough up this money to those who participate in the GOtV movement, then we may lose a few votes. We should not expect Obama to participate in this type of method, as it seems contrary to what he intends to do for the country.

Is there a solution?

I am not from Philadelphia.  I grew up in the Northeast and am familiar with the graft and corruption in many major US cities.  But the idea that you would only vote for a candidate if that candidate would pay you to campaign for them seems wrong.  Very wrong.

While perhaps this does not peg the outrage meter quite like Bush signing off on torture, it really pisses me off that campaigners are demanding money from the Obama campaign in Philadephia.  It makes me very proud to hear Obama explain that he will not be paying any "street money".

It seems that Shaquasia Goldsby, of Hartford, has some special electoral skills that are worth paying her company, Urban Voters & Associates over 17,000 for.  There is nothing wrong with a young entrepreneur starting up a business, but this business seems very odd.  I am not sure why the mainstream press, other than the Hartford Courant, has not picked up on this story.  Below is a link to the story in the Courant. No need for me go into much more detail here, please use the link.  
Please urge your local papers (and tv stations) to look into this mess!!

This Lieberman vote fraud scandal just gets weirder and weirder..

Hartford Courant Story

I want to use this post to explain how street money works, because I imagine there are many other people out there who aren't familiar with the term.

A campaign will rely on the influence or outreach abilities of people who know their community to distribute street money for votes. This can mean local political organizers, ministers, labor leaders, or often drug dealers.  There are three basic ways street money can be used to buy votes.