Court made caucuses more important

When Al Gore first ran for president in 1988, he ridiculed the Iowa Caucuses. He called it 'madness” for the first nomination battle to take place in 'the small state of Iowa.”

Today, Iowa's first-in-the-nation status once again faces criticism. But recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions make the Iowa Caucuses more important than ever.

Less than two weeks ago, in the case of McCutcheon v. FEC, the Supreme Court struck down the aggregate limit of $123,200 on total contributions by a single donor to federal candidates, parties, and affiliated committees. Although individual contribution limits of $5,200 per candidate remain in place, the Court's ruling permits donors to contribute the maximum amount to as many federal candidates and political committees as they like.

The McCutcheon ruling follows in the footsteps of the 2010 case of Citizens United v. FEC. In Citizens United, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment bars Congress from capping contributions to Super PACs and other affiliated committees.

The Supreme Court's rulings have helped drive campaign spending to unprecedented levels. In 2012, total campaign spending exceeded $7 billion, an all-time high. 2016 will undoubtedly set records.

The escalating cost of running for president makes the Iowa Caucuses uniquely valuable to the nation. Iowa's small size means that a candidate does not need tens of millions of dollars in order to have a chance to win. A hardworking candidate can reach voters simply by driving across the state and meeting Iowans in person at town halls and other public events. In addition, television advertising rates in Iowa are relatively inexpensive even for cash-strapped candidates. That means the playing field is level.

History demonstrates the point. In 1976, Jimmy Carter stunned the political world by coming out of nowhere to win the Iowa Caucuses. Likewise, in 1988, Bob Cole trounced Vice President George Bush in Iowa.

Underdogs continue to win here. In 2008, Barack Obama shocked the political pundits by defeating Hillary Clinton in Iowa despite her huge campaign bankroll. And in 2012, Rick Santorum edged out the multimillionaire Mitt Romney in yet another remarkable Iowa upset.

Santorum's victory deserves special mention. He won despite being vastly outspent not only by Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry, but also by their Super PACs.

The historical record thus demonstrates that a candidate does not need deep pockets to win the Iowa Caucuses.

Now imagine if a big state like Florida kicked off the primary and caucus season. Florida has a population of 19 million spread across a huge geographical area. To reach voters, candidates must run ads in major, far-flung television markets, including Miami, Tampa, and Orlando.

Campaign costs in Florida are outrageously expensive. For example, in the 2010 Florida gubernatorial campaign, the candidates spent almost $100 million combined. In a state like Florida, where television is king, the power of Super PACs is magnified. Super PACs dominate the television airwaves and drown out underfunded candidates before a single vote is cast.

In Iowa, however, retail politics still work. The state's small size gives candidates a chance to engage with voters in person and build critical early momentum, like Carter in '76 and Obama in '08.

As the 2016 election approaches, Iowa's critics should consider the consequences of opening the door to even more Super PAC influence over our presidential campaigns. If the nomination contest begins in big states like Florida, only the candidates who attract early Super PAC support will have any chance of success. That bodes poorly for American democracy.

Today Iowa's size is precisely why it should remain first-in-the-nation in 2016.

l Anthony Gaughan is associate professor of law at Drake University. Comments: anthony.gaughan@drake.edu