Tom Ferrick, an Inquirer columnist who left to go work for a local good government group, talks about street money:

Philadelphia is a living museum of American history, where the political machine, though it wheezes and gasps, still functions much as it did 100 years ago. Then, a political campaign was a labor-intensive activity. It took legions to spread the good word about candidates, round up voters to go to the polls and assist in their deliberations by handing out sample ballots containing the names of candidates blessed by the party.

Now that patronage is all but gone, how does a party keep those legions on the job 12 to 14 hours come voting day? The answer, according to ward leaders, is street money. They argue that paying someone $100 for a day’s worth of honest labor for the party and its candidates is more democratic (with a small d) than the millions spent on modern capital-intensive politics, with its pollsters and media consultants and TV ads. And they have a point.

That’s not to say street money doesn’t cause problems. For one thing, by the time it reaches ward leaders, it is cash. While some ward leaders are assiduous about keeping receipts and filing the necessary public reports, others aren’t. Indeed, some ward leaders have — surprise! — skimmed money before it reached the street. There is even a name for this, “back-porch money” — not enough to build a house, but enough to get yourself a nice new porch.

For another, ward leaders have been known to take street money from candidates, promise support and then not deliver. There is a name for this, too. These ward leaders are called “yellow birds,” after the old airline commercial that touted vacation flights to Florida. They take your money and metaphorically (and sometimes literally) head south.

Street money has found its most effective uses not in presidential primaries but in low-visibility races, where appearing on enough sample ballots can bring victory. This is especially true in races for the local bench, where voters have no clue who is who and what is what. In judicial races, the rule is that a candidate will need a budget of $250,000 apportioned thusly: $29 for a staple gun; $2,000 for posters and $247,971 for street money.

It may sound like a joke but it isn’t.

In 2001, a state grand jury investigated an election in which candidates for county judgeships spent $1.6 million, most of it for street money. Investigators said there was $300,000 they could not account for. “Money just disappeared,” said one prosecutor.

During the investigation, which I covered, ward leaders were shown checks from judicial candidates that had been made out to them, endorsed by them and cashed by them. This did not stop them from claiming to have no memory of the checks. The grand jury indicted three ward leaders for sloppy record keeping. They got probation, paid their fines and went on with their business. And so goes political life in Philadelphia: wrists are slapped and, come election time, palms are crossed with gold.

So what will happen to Senators Obama and Clinton? Well, this year they were rescued by Representative Robert Brady, the city’s Democratic committee chairman, who announced last week that there was enough money in the party coffers to provide $100 in street money per worker on primary day.

But the candidates are not home free. In the fall, Pennsylvania will be a key state. Philadelphia, with its 799,000 Democrats, will be an important city. The presidential candidate will most likely get a call from (salivating) local party officials. The topic? Street money. And this time he or she will probably have to pay.