Half a century ago, after the chaotic 1968 National Convention, the Democratic party sought to reform a nominating process that was considered to be opaque, elitist, and unresponsive. Thus, in 1972, Iowa’s caucus system opened the next presidential primary season by giving ordinary voters a direct, small-scale role. Notably, the choice of Iowa was born of practical expediency – it was small, manageable, and embraced a local form of democracy.
Yet, what began as a practical launching pad has evolved into something different. The 2024 primary calendar saw a transition away from Iowa to states like South Carolina, Michigan, and Georgia to promote diversity in the process.[i] According to The Washington Post, 61% of the South Carolina Democratic electorate are black voters, contrasting with only 2% in Iowa—leaning towards a more inclusive polity.[ii] However, this structural change to the Democratic primary calendar is more than just a demographic shift – it introduces significant financial implications to the candidate selection process.[iii]
Where a candidate once needed roughly ~$310,000 per week to stay competitive in Iowa’s media markets, today the going rate in a state like South Carolina can easily hit ~$1 million weekly.[iv] This steep escalation creates a new form of gatekeeping, quietly reshaping who can effectively compete in presidential primaries.
This financial barrier has consequences. Financing a run in a small state like Iowa is already hard enough. For example, in 2020, candidates like Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Julián Castro, each with their own compelling narratives and policy ideas, struggled to get through the Iowa caucus financially.[v][vi][vii] Harris suspended her presidential campaign in December 2019, explicitly citing an inability to maintain financial viability.[viii] Similarly, Booker exited the race in January 2020, noting that insufficient funding left him unable to effectively compete.[ix] There candidates’ inability to saturate Iowa’s airwaves meant many caucus-goers never heard their names enough times to form a lasting impression.[x]
Importantly, the Designated Market Areas (DMA), are islands of influence, defined by the reach of broadcast signals. Winning a large DMA – such as those covering Charleston, Detroit, or Atlanta – means relentlessly flooding screens with candidate messaging. These metropolitan markets with high population density and economic power render political visibility a function of financial capacity. Candidates like Harris, Booker, and Castro would seemingly be unable to compete in these new early states, hampering their chance at succeeding during a primary campaign.
To address this inequality, America could level the playing field by creating a national Lowest Unit Rate (LUR) based on the cheapest DMA market in the country. Under this proposed system, television stations nationwide would offer political candidates advertising rates equivalent to those available in the lowest-priced DMA: Glendive, Montana. By using Glendive as the national lowest rate standard, many presidential candidates would be able to afford substantial television ads in the primary race. In Glendive, it would cost approximately $20,000 to run enough ads to fully saturate the local media market and repeatedly reach the entire audience.[xi]
The current Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) LUR[xii] requirement tries to create equal opportunity within markets by ensuring political candidates pay the lowest rate offered to comparable commercial advertisers;[xiii] but this system is imperfect. In practice, offering the ‘lowest unit rate’ in an expensive market is still prohibitive for most.[xiv] Thus, a national lowest unit rate provides a clearer path toward genuine affordability and accessibility.
By pegging advertising costs to the least expensive market, the national LUR ensures every candidate can afford to reach voters across early states without excessive financial barriers. This reform removes the advantage wealthy or well-funded candidates currently hold, creating a more inclusive primary competition.
The FCC already maintains a robust legal framework requiring broadcasters to serve the public interest. Historically, broadcast licenses have been granted contingent upon stations fostering political dialogue.[xv] This longstanding public-interest obligation provides a legal basis for adopting a national LUR, aligning broadcasters’ responsibilities with democratic priorities.
Broadcasters will resist, fearing lost profits from highly lucrative political advertising seasons. However, recent record-breaking revenues from Political Action Committee (PAC) advertising – totaling billions of dollars – suggest that broadcasters would remain highly profitable. Balancing these corporate interests with democratic ideals ensures the proposal’s practicality and fairness.
With a fairer national LUR, more candidates would appear on the airwaves in Charleston, Detroit, Atlanta, and across the country, each offering distinctive perspectives. Voters would encounter not just heavily funded front-runners, but a diverse collection of candidates – some younger, others less known, many bringing unique life experiences. Increased candidate visibility would invigorate voter engagement, particularly among communities historically marginalized from the political process, by enhancing perceived political efficacy and reducing representational alienation. Ultimately, greater candidate diversity directly strengthens democratic processes by aligning political leadership with the demographic and lived realities of the electorate.
Without reform, high-cost campaigns continue to choke off possibilities, creating what Jennifer L. Lawless and Richard L. Fox would describe as a representation gap.[xvi] The diversity of the candidate pool dwindles before voters even cast their ballots, with media costs barring the entrance to all but the wealthiest or most connected. Without substantial funds, immensely talented individuals remain obscured, reinforcing inequities.
In summary, only by tackling these intertwined issues can we create a primary process that represents our diverse electorate. The path to the presidency must not be determined by fundraising prowess but by a candidate’s ability to inspire, lead, and genuinely connect with the American people. The challenge ahead is clear: reforming the primary system to align with the ideals of our democracy – not with the power of wealth.
[i] Katie Glueck, “Democrats Overhaul Party’s Primary Calendar, Upending a Political Tradition,” The New York Times, February 4, 2023, sec. U.S., https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/04/us/politics/democrats-vote-primary-calendar
[ii] David Darmofal, “Analysis | Who Are Black Voters Supporting in 2020? Here’s What We Might Learn from South Carolina.,” The Washington Post, February 26, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/26/who-are-black-voters-supporting-2020-heres-what-we-might-learn-south-carolina/.
[iii] “How to Make the Iowa Caucuses Less Influential: A National Primary or Calendar Change | Vox,” accessed May 21, 2025, https://www.vox.com/2020/2/3/21115228/how-to-make-iowa-caucuses-less-influential.
[iv] “Tracking Every Presidential Candidate’s TV Ad Buys | FiveThirtyEight,” accessed May 21, 2025, https://web.archive.org/web/20250305131857/https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-campaign-ads/#market=ia.
[v] “Kamala Harris, out of Money, Ends Presidential Campaign – Daily Trail Markers – CBS News,” December 3, 2019, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2020-daily-trail-markers-kamala-harris-out-of-money-drops-presidential-bid/.
[vi] “Cory Booker on ‘Face the Nation’ Appeals for Donations to Keep 2020 Presidential Campaign Afloat – CBS News,” December 1, 2019, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cory-booker-2020-says-i-need-help-cory-booker-appeals-for-donations-to-keep-2020-campaign-afloat-on-face-the-nation/.
[vii] Lissandra Villa, “Julián Castro Threatens to Drop Out of the Presidential Primary Over Lackluster Fundraising,” TIME, October 21, 2019, https://time.com/5706272/julian-castro-2020-fundraising/.
[viii] “Kamala Harris, out of Money, Ends Presidential Campaign – Daily Trail Markers – CBS News,” December 3, 2019, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2020-daily-trail-markers-kamala-harris-out-of-money-drops-presidential-bid/.
[ix] “Cory Booker on ‘Face the Nation’ Appeals for Donations to Keep 2020 Presidential Campaign Afloat – CBS News,” December 1, 2019, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cory-booker-2020-says-i-need-help-cory-booker-appeals-for-donations-to-keep-2020-campaign-afloat-on-face-the-nation/.
[x] “Julián Castro Ends Presidential Run: ‘It Simply Isn’t Our Time’ – The New York Times,” accessed May 21, 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/us/politics/julian-castro-dropping-out.html.
[xi] “Nielsen DMA Rankings 2023,” accessed May 21, 2025, https://ustvdb.com/seasons/2022-23/markets/.
[xii] “Statutes and Rules on Candidate Appearances & Advertising | Federal Communications Commission,” accessed May 21, 2025, https://www.fcc.gov/media/policy/statutes-and-rules-candidate-appearances-advertising.
[xiii] “Statutes and Rules on Candidate Appearances & Advertising | Federal Communications Commission.”
[xiv] Terry L Etter and Rick D Rhodes, “Determining Lowest Unit Charge: Good LUC!,” California Western Law Review 28, no. 2 (1991).
[xv] KPMG Economic Consulting Services, “History of the Broadcast License Application Process” (Federal Communications Commission, November 1, 2000), https://transition.fcc.gov/opportunity/meb_study/broadcast_lic_study_pt1.pdf.
[xvi] “Why Are Women Still Not Running for Public Office?,” Brookings (blog), accessed May 23, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-are-women-still-not-running-for-public-office/.”