Here in Connecticut among various Democratic campaigns I've been privy to rumors since the primary that in our largest and very poor city, Bridgeport, the Lieberman campaign used "street money" to pay people in minority neighborhoods to vote. Now newspapers are on the story.
Lieberman
won Bridgeport by a slim margin -- 504 votes, which was a bit curious because challenger Ned Lamont was a volunteer teacher in the Bridgeport public schools and had a strong presence in that city. Post-primary, we thought that Lieberman won Bridgeport because of the union vote there. But as we put pieces of the puzzle together, we began to surmise that a lot the difference could have been accounted for with street money.
A very smart investigative reporter has an unobtrusive article in the New Haven Register this morning which really begins to flesh out these suspicions. Over at My Left Nutmeg, IMHO one of the country's greatest local progressive blogs, Matt Browner Hamlin explains the Register article better than I ever could.
The Register article raises three serious potential violations of campaign finance laws. The one that most interests me is the possibility that the Lieberman campaign laundered money through their field consultants to convert it to street money.
Also, [Tom] Reyes and another man, Daryl Brooks of New Haven, who ran a consultant service, said they each got one check from the campaign for their services, but they are listed in the third quarter campaign finance report as getting two checks, for a total of twice what the men said they received.
The report lists Reyes as getting two checks for $8,250, one on Aug. 4 and one on Aug. 15. Brooks received $12,200 on Aug. 11 and another check for the same amount on Aug. 15, according to the Lieberman report. Both men said this was inaccurate.
Paying for services not delivered is a hallmark of street money. By writing checks that ostensibly look like they belong, campaigns can give their operatives cash to put on the street around election. Both of these men are saying they only received one check and their bank balances may well reflect that, but it I find it hard to believe that the Lieberman campaign's accountants accidentally cut an extra $20,450 in checks or accidentally added that much money to their records.
No, I think the most probable answer is Alan Schlesinger's hypothesis, that the Lieberman campaign was putting huge sums of cash into play as street money.
Friends in Washington have replied that "everyone uses street money", so it's no big deal. I profoundly disagree. Street money is wrong. The public knows that intuitively. They don't know how widespread it is. If it got out to the general public that Lieberman has been using street money, it would tank his campaign -- and perhaps a number of others. The obvious hope here is that an investigative reporter can confirm these allegations and have it in Connecticut papers before my fellow citizens make the mistake of casting their ballot for a politician who may be quite corrupt.
Many of you Kossacks were out here for the primary. Perhaps some of you know something more. Matt has made his email available as mbrownerhamlin@goowy.com.