Are the Iowa Caucuses Becoming too High Priced?

David Yepsen wrote an article this morning called Keep Cashing in On Caucuses - and see 'em Leave. Yepsen's main point of the piece is....

Are the Iowa caucuses becoming a pay-to-play proposition? Are we just a bunch of money-grubbing hacks forcing presidential candidates to pay tribute?

The evidence is mounting, and it undercuts Iowa's claim to be this pristine place where salt-of-the-Earth Americans take an up-close measure of would-be presidents. On top of all that, we've seen at least one community tell presidential candidates it doesn't want them in its parade.

If Iowa wants to keep these caucuses, our own political leaders must start treating visiting candidates as guests, not as cash cows. And Iowans need to welcome them into the state - and the parades - and, yes, tolerate those annoying automated telephone calls asking us to come to their rallies.

If we don't, there are plenty of other states that would just love to do it instead.

Jonathon Singer from MyDD defends Iowa by saying...

Now I do concede it's possible, if not probable, that candidates and parties will become fed up with the rising costs of running campaigns in Iowa. But that's not a problem that is limited to the Hawkeye state. And moving around the primary calendar won't do anything to mitigate this problem, either, as candidates, consultants and outside organizations will be able to figure out how to game a new system fairly quickly. As such, it's difficult for me to foresee the rising cost of running a campaign for the Iowa caucuses being a leading factor in parties shifting around their primary schedules to let other states participate first.

I see Yepsen's point. The thing Iowa (and New Hampshire) have going for them for being first is that it is cheap enough for anyone to campaign here. You don't need to spend big money in big TV markets to compete. It is retail politics at it's best. If Iowa becomes a fancy boutique that charges candidates high prices for access then that undercuts the entire argument.

However, Singer has a good point that the rising cost of campaigns is not unique between the Mississippi and the Missouri Rivers. Just what to see how much candidates spend in the early states of California, Florida, and New Jersey to campaign.