FOLLOW THE MONEY
Campaign Finance in Local Races in New Hampshire
In national politics, we often fixate on “big money” — the multimillion-dollar TV buys, the mega-donors, the dark money groups. But some of the most consequential decisions affecting daily life are made at the local level—town boards, school districts, planning commissions, and state legislative seats. In New Hampshire, where elections can be decided by a handful of votes, the flow of relatively small sums can shape governance in subtle but powerful ways.
This article traces how campaign finance works in New Hampshire’s local and state legislative races, explores real data and case studies, highlights the system’s transparency (and opacity), and proposes reforms for making money in politics more accountable.
Legal Framework: What the Laws Say
To understand how money influences local races, we first need to map the legal terrain: what rules exist, where there are gaps, and how those rules have changed.
State Law: RSA Chapter 664 & Online Reporting
New Hampshire’s campaign finance regime is defined primarily by RSA 664: Political Expenditures and Contributions. Under this statute:
- Candidates and political committees must register with the Secretary of State’s office. (New Hampshire Secretary of State)
- They must file periodic reports of receipts and expenditures. These include monetary contributions, in-kind gifts, and expenditures. (New Hampshire Secretary of State)
- RSA 664:9-b allows a candidate or political committee the option to file reports electronically via the state’s online campaign finance system. This system also serves as a searchable public portal. (New Hampshire Governor’s Office)
- As of August 23, 2024, the law formally provides for electronic filing. (New Hampshire Governor’s Office)
That sounds fine in theory — but in practice, use of the online system is voluntary. Many candidates still file scanned handwritten or typed reports, which are then scanned or re-scanned into PDF form. (NHPR) This leads to poor legibility, loss of machine readability, and elevated barriers for public analysis. (New Hampshire Bulletin)
The Secretary of State’s “Campaign Finance” page allows anyone to view candidate and committee filings via an online interface. (New Hampshire Secretary of State) The separate portal, the New Hampshire Online Campaign Finance System (CFS), lets users search by candidate, committee, or donor. (cfs.sos.nh.gov)
Contribution Limits, Disclosure, and Loopholes
The state imposes limits and disclosure thresholds, but also leaves room for large, less-transparent flows.
- For state legislative candidates, individual contributions are capped at $15,000 per election cycle. (Ballotpedia)
- Political committees (PACs) and parties generally may give unlimited amounts to candidates, under recent legal shifts. (Ballotpedia)
- Corporations and labor unions cannot make direct contributions to candidates, but they may contribute via PACs or “political advocacy organizations.” (State Regs Today)
- Contributions over $25 must be reported. (New Hampshire Secretary of State)
- Independent expenditures (i.e. outside spending not coordinated with a candidate) are permitted without a cap. (State Regs Today)
A key recent change: in 2023, a law inserted into the state budget removed limits on contributions from “political advocacy organizations” to candidates. This change allows PAC-style groups to funnel large amounts into campaigns without disclosing donors as transparently as prior mechanisms required. (New Hampshire Bulletin)
In the 2024 governor’s race, this shift was starkly evident: the Live Free PAC (a political advocacy organization) transferred $14.7 million to the Ayotte campaign, much of it traceable to the Republican Governors Association, but with little clarity on the individual sources. (New Hampshire Bulletin) Opposition critics say this undermines accountability, since the new legal structure lets “dark money” flow more freely. (New Hampshire Bulletin)
Local Campaigns and State Preemption
One twist: local (town, city, school board) races aren’t always subject to robust local campaign finance ordinances; they fall under whatever rules the state imposes plus any municipal ordinances. In many towns, there is no separate local campaign finance authority, and the same state rules — with all their gaps — apply.
“Campaign finance laws in New Hampshire vary depending on the type of election,” notes a regulatory overview. Local races have fewer specialized protections. (State Regs Today)
In short: the statutory foundation exists, but it’s shaky at the edges. Transparency is partial; enforcement is spotty; and the 2023 legal change weakened oversight of money flowing through PAC-like entities.
What the Data Shows: Trends & Patterns
Legal rules matter, but data tells the story of how money actually moves. Below I present findings from existing analyses and public filings, and show how even “small” amounts can exert outsized influence.
Citizens Count Study: NH State House Races (2024)
Citizens Count, a New Hampshire civic data nonprofit, examined campaign finance data for the 2024 New Hampshire House races (as of March 31, 2025). They transcribed data from handwritten reports into spreadsheet form to analyze patterns. (Citizens Count)
Key insights:
- Many state representative campaigns are low-spend. For many districts, total expenditures remain in the low thousands. (Citizens Count)
- Big spenders can influence results, especially in swing districts. But in most races, money alone does not guarantee victory. Citizens Count writes: “for most state representative races, money is apparently not the deciding factor.” (Citizens Count)
- The study also had to divide “bundled independent expenditures” (e.g. 603 Forward) evenly among multiple candidates, because the original report grouped spending across races. (Citizens Count)
This suggests that, while financial resources matter, other factors—like personal reputation, local connections, ground campaigning—remain critical in many districts.
Transparency Uptake and the Online System
Since the creation of the state’s online campaign finance portal, uptake has been uneven. Some major candidates still submit hand-written or scanned reports, citing technical or institutional inertia. (NHPR)
In 2024, Cinde Warmington (former state senator, Democratic primary for governor) did not use the online system. Her reports were faint, pixelated scans that confounded readability. (New Hampshire Bulletin) Meanwhile, rival Joyce Craig and Kelly Ayotte did use the system, with better legibility. (New Hampshire Bulletin)
This creates asymmetry: candidates with tech capacity or institutional support get cleaner, more accessible financial records. Those without it—or unwilling—can obscure donor patterns.
Big Money in Statewide Races Spilling over Locally
The 2024 New Hampshire governor’s race illustrates how money flows from statewide campaigns into broader influence (and perhaps local ripple effects). Kelly Ayotte raised more than $21 million in that campaign cycle, compared to $7.3 million for Joyce Craig. (Wikipedia)
As noted, a large share of Ayotte’s money came via Live Free PAC, itself funded by the Republican Governors Association. Because the 2023 law allows unlimited transfers from these advocacy groups to candidates, and because such groups have weaker donor disclosure requirements, much of that funding becomes opaque. (New Hampshire Bulletin)
Even though that is a statewide contest, the consequences bleed into local politics: national and state interests can inject resources to influence down-ballot races (e.g. party committees, independent expenditure groups, shared media buys). This is particularly relevant in swing legislative districts.
Long-Term Datasets & Public Accountability
Several datasets collect New Hampshire campaign emissions over longer spans:
- The Accountability Project has a record of New Hampshire contributions (2015–2021) aggregated from state disclosures. (publicaccountability.org)
- Open Democracy New Hampshire publishes a guide to navigating financial disclosures, and highlights quirks — reporting omissions, inconsistent filing formats, and difficulties in comparing elections across years. (opendemocracynh.org)
Such data projects are essential because the state’s own system is not optimized for cross-election trend analysis.
Case Studies in Local & Legislative Races
To see money’s micro-politics at work, here are a few illustrative local or near-local examples. The boundaries between “local” and “state legislative” often blur in New Hampshire’s governance system.
School Board Races: The New Frontline
Around the country, school board races have become battlegrounds for issues like curriculum, masks, book bans, and critical race theory. New Hampshire is no exception. While detailed statewide aggregate data is scarce, observers note the trend: more outside money, more advertising, more contested races.
One reported example: in some Seacoast towns, parent groups and ideological nonprofits have supplied mailers and social media ads in school board contests—traditionally low-budget races. Though I did not find a public breakdown for a specific town in my sources, this trend is widely reported in local media across many states (and echoed in NH coverage).
These races matter: school boards decide budgets, textbooks, policies on testing and equity. A $2,000 ad buy in a small district could represent 10–20% of the total spending—enough to shift narratives.
State House (Swing Districts)
Take a swing House district in a mid-sized city (e.g. Nashua, Portsmouth, Concord outskirts). Imagine two candidates—A and B—each raising $8,000–$12,000. If a party committee or outside PAC drops $3,000 in mailers supporting A (or opposing B), that is a large relative boost, easily double the margin in some districts.
While I do not have a public breakdown for a specific district beyond what Citizens Count provides, the general pattern is that independent expenditures and PAC support often tip close races, rather than overwhelming longshot ones. (Citizens Count)
Local City / Mayoral Races: Manchester 2023 (Illustrative)
Although not in the sources I located, earlier I referred (in your initial request) to Manchester mayoral races where outside groups spent heavily on advertising. Let me contextualize: in a city of ~110,000 people, a few outside PACs might spend $50,000–$150,000 on mailers, digital ads, and canvassing support. In races where local fundraising is $200,000 or less, those outside dollars can dominate the message.
Even though I could not locate a disaggregated source in this research pass, the pattern is consistent with local media reporting and political observers in New Hampshire and comparable states.
Why Money in Local Races Matters (More Than You Think)
When we talk about democracy, it’s tempting to focus on high offices: president, U.S. Senate, governor. But many of the decisions that affect daily life are made at local and legislative levels:
- Zoning, housing development, land use, infrastructure
- School budget, curriculum, facilities
- Police & fire funding, public safety priorities
- Road maintenance, public works, utilities
- Local regulation (business permits, environmental controls)
If donors can tip local races, they get leverage over policies that directly affect neighborhoods.
Also, local races are far more accessible to “whisper influence” rather than mass media. A well-targeted mailer or one digital campaign in one precinct can sway a few dozen votes—and that may decide an election.
Moreover, because local races often attract less public scrutiny, money flows there with lower risk of backlash or media exposure.
Problems, Gaps, and Weaknesses
Our survey of law, data, and cases reveals several structural problems:
- Voluntary Reporting and Poor Readability
Because electronic filing is optional, many filings remain in scanned, low-legibility form. That raises barriers to public scrutiny. (NHPR) - Loopholes via “Political Advocacy Organizations”
The 2023 change allowing unlimited transfers from advocacy organizations to candidates undermines limits and donor transparency. (New Hampshire Bulletin) - Unequal Capacity Among Candidates
Well-funded or tech-savvy campaigns can more easily conform to reporting, maintain clearer financial records, and avoid disclosure obfuscation. Newer or grassroots candidates may not have those capacities. - Enforcement & Oversight Weakness
It’s not enough to mandate reports; someone has to check them, audit them, impose penalties, and publicize infractions. The current system is thin on enforcement visibility. - Lack of Local Regulation
In many municipalities, there is no local ordinance to supplement state law. If a town wanted stricter limits or more disclosure, it often lacks legal authority (unless the state explicitly allows it). - Aggregated Independent Expenditures & Bundling
Some outside spending, grouped under umbrella organizations, makes attribution to individual races or candidates difficult. Citizens Count had to divide “603 Forward” amounts evenly when reporting. (Citizens Count) - Barriers to Comparative, Longitudinal Analysis
Because filings may change format, legibility, or reporting conventions from election to election, it is hard for watchdogs and researchers to build consistent, comparable datasets over time.
Reform Proposals: Toward More Transparent & Fair Local Campaigns
Money in politics can’t be eliminated, but we can structure systems that reduce opacity, level the field, and strengthen democracy.
Below are a menu of reform ideas (some bold, some incremental). You’ll need political will and institutional capacity, but these map toward better outcomes.
1. Make Electronic Reporting Mandatory
Turn currently optional e-filing into required e-filing for all state, legislative, and local campaigns above a modest fundraising threshold (e.g. $2,500). That ensures machine readability, easier public access, and consistent archival records.
Implementation caveat: provide technical support and training to smaller campaigns and towns so lack of capacity is not a barrier.
2. Standardize and Enforce Legibility & Format
Mandate a clean, standard digital form (e.g. CSV or standardized fields) rather than scanned PDFs. Require candidate committees to use software that outputs in the standard format. Penalize submissions that are illegible or unsearchable after a grace period.
3. Restore / Strengthen Contribution Limits & Closing Loopholes
- Reimpose caps on transfers from PAC-like entities or political advocacy organizations to candidates (or at least require same disclosure rules).
- Impose aggregate limits on contributions from a single donor across multiple vehicles (corporations, LLCs, PACs).
- Tie loophole closing: require all transfers to be traceable to original donors (i.e. pass-through transparency).
This would roll back some of the 2023 law’s weakening of oversight. (New Hampshire Bulletin)
4. Increase Enforcement, Audits & Penalties
- Proactively audit a random sample of campaigns annually, with public audits and summaries.
- Increase penalties for late or missing filings (sliding scale based on campaign size).
- Publicize violations clearly on the Secretary of State website and in local media.
- Provide a whistleblower or citizen complaint mechanism with teeth.
5. Matching Funds / Small Donor Public Financing (Pilot)
Introduce pilot programs in municipalities to match small donations (e.g. match $5–$50 contributions) for local races. That gives grassroots donors more leverage and counterbalances big donors. Even a small pilot in one or two towns could prove the model.
6. Local Ordinances & Municipal Empowerment
Authorize and encourage towns/cities to adopt local campaign finance ordinances that go beyond state minimums (so long as they don’t conflict with state law). For instance, a town may set lower local limits or require local disclosure of in-kind contributions.
7. Transparent Independent Expenditures / Bundling Disclosure
Require outside spenders to report detailed line items: which race, how much, and underlying donors, not just aggregated totals. Disclose bundling arrangements.
8. User-Friendly Public Databases & Civic Tools
- Upgrade the Secretary of State’s portal: searchable, filterable by candidate, donor, zip code, election cycle.
- Provide “campaign finance dashboards” or visualization tools for citizens.
- Encourage third-party civic groups to parse, analyze, and publicize money flows.
9. Education & Capacity Building
Many small campaigns do not have staff or expertise for compliance. The state or civic nonprofits should offer workshops, templates, software, legal clinics, and “campaign finance help desks” especially geared to first-time or small-dollar campaigns.
Potential Pushbacks & Trade-offs
- Administrative burden on small campaigns. Mandating digital compliance may impose cost on low-budget races. (Solution: subsidized software, state support, grants.)
- First Amendment / free speech concerns. Donors might argue contribution limits or disclosure rules chill expression. Reform must be carefully crafted to survive constitutional scrutiny.
- State vs local preemption. Some reform proposals depend on legislative authorization for municipalities — the state must allow local-level flexibility.
- Enforcement capacity. Laws without enforcement are weak. The Secretary of State’s office must have staffing, auditing budgets, and legal backing.
- Political resistance. Incumbents benefiting from opaque systems will resist change. Real reform likely demands grassroots pressure and cross-party support.
What Would Transparency Look Like? (Hypothetical)
Imagine a voter in Concord, NH, in 2026 town election season. She wants to check who’s funding candidates for the local planning board. She types the candidate’s name into the Secretary of State’s campaign finance portal and sees:
- A clean summary: total receipts, expenditures, cash on hand
- A sortable table: each contribution ≥ $25, with donor name, occupation, address, date, and category
- A graph of expenditures: mailers, digital ads, events, printing
- Side panel: independent expenditures supporting or opposing that candidate (with the same level of granularity)
- A comparison tool: How this campaign’s numbers compare to previous cycles
- Alerts: any late or missing filings publicly flagged
Thanks to mandatory e-filing and structured data, the entire thing is readable and downloadable by anyone, including journalists and civic tech startups.
The candidate campaigns, knowing this level of transparency, are more cautious about large hidden donors, bundling, or last-minute dark ads. The playing field tilts slightly more toward civic accountability.
Conclusion: The Hidden Currents of Democracy
Money in local races often escapes scrutiny, but its impacts are concrete: who wins a school board seat, which candidate controls zoning decisions, who sets the direction for municipal debt and infrastructure. In New Hampshire, where democracy is supposed to live close to the ground, financial influence still flows through channels many voters can’t see.
The laws—RSA 664 and related statutes—provide a scaffold. But the current regime leaves gaping structural holes: optional e-filing, opaque transfers, weak enforcement, and underutilized municipal authority.
To strengthen democratic integrity in New Hampshire’s local and legislative contests, we need layered reform: mandatory digital transparency, closing PAC loopholes, audit capacity, public financing pilots, and civic infrastructure for analysis.
