About two years ago, there was a panic that we were about to lose our New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary status. Those of us who knew the history of our primary, and how we have retained our position all these years, said our status was very secure, and that New Hampshire would be at least as important and relevant in 2008 as it has been for decades.

Our state law since the 1970s has guaranteed that our primary would be at least seven days prior to another election, and it will be. It might even be ahead of any other caucus. Since we pay for our election, and we have a state law allowing our Secretary of State to adjust our date with very short notice, we're all set. For now.

But there's no guarantee about what will happen in the future. My biggest concern isn't about 2008. It's what will shape up for 2012.

There are three ways that New Hampshire could lose our lead-off status: 1, Congress could create a national primary system, although I think that is quite unlikely because of states rights issues. 2, Both the major national parties could effectively boycott New Hampshire if there is bipartisan agreement to do so and create a binding two-party primary/caucus calendar. 3, The leading candidates could just stop coming here, making the New Hampshire Primary essentially irrelevant. There is no requirement that they must file their candidacies here.

I have seen us successfully turning away challenges to our lead-off primary since 1970. Our biggest challenges, in 1975-1976, the mid-1980s, and the turn of the century, were won by our determination to maintain our tradition of fairness and inclusion of everyone who wants to be president. We respect the candidates, and they respect us.

I'm concerned, however, that "respect" has a fine line. When the NH Republican Party this year decided to put what amounts to a cover charge on candidates who would speak at a major dinner -- pricing "prime time" speaking slots at $10,000 and lesser slots at $5,000 -- that was a bit much.

Both parties have stepped over the line at times, of course -- charging presidential candidates big dollars for access to party voter lists, and "encouraging" candidates to contribute to State Representative and State Senate campaigns. A more recent ploy has been to get the presidential candidates in both parties to "sponsor" or "lend" campaign staff for various state campaigns in the off-year elections.

But charging the men and women who would be president a fee to use a microphone at a party event is a bit too much. It shows a greedy arrogance that is below us, and which as New Hampshire Democrats and Republicans we should be united in rejecting. Let's stop it. We're better than that.

The New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary isn't about "us." It certainly should not be considered to be a fundraiser for New Hampshire political parties or candidates. It also should not be degraded into some sort of tourist attraction. It's always been much more than that.

The NH Presidential Primary is about democracy at its best. Ours is still a state where candidates can run on relatively small campaign budgets, so long that we don't try to be too inventive in ways to put on a cover charge at the border. Having the man or woman who is to be our next President visit us in our living rooms and walk our sidewalks to talk with us is an incredible privilege. While they're asking for our votes, let's not risk our privilege because of our greed for their dollars.

Their right to speak should have no pricetag. Our right to listen, and then to vote, should not be put at risk by political parties reaching for cash.

Posted by Jim Splaine at 09:22 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)