By Granite State Report
New Hampshire’s politics have a quaint reputation — small towns, local engagement, “live free or die” independence. Scratch the surface, and the machinery running the Granite State’s democracy isn’t all sunshine and town meetings. Like every state, NH’s political ecosystem is shaped by money, interests, influence, and the relentless push–pull between transparency and secrecy.
At stake is nothing less than who calls the shots in Concord, who funds them, and how New Hampshire’s laws and policies reflect the voices of citizens — or their biggest donors.
Campaign Finance: Still a Wild Frontier
New Hampshire long touted itself as a state with relatively open campaign finance laws — modest contribution limits for individuals and parties, broad disclosure requirements, and a tradition of grassroots engagement. That framework is now under stress.
As of the 2025 election cycle, new regulations require mandatory online campaign finance reporting for all candidates and political committees, standardizing filings and making donor data easier to access — at least in theory. Under House Bill 1091, online disclosure replaces haphazard paper filings and unlegible formats, and the system will show full donor names and addresses for contributions over $50. (Orr&Reno)
Despite these efforts, critics argue that loopholes remain massive and exploited.
The 2023 state budget included a change that allows political advocacy organizations to give unlimited money to candidates without disclosing their donors — a significant shift from traditional limits. This provision has already reshaped the 2024 governor’s race, where former U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte’s campaign raised record-breaking sums, much of it coming through a single political action committee (PAC) funded by outside groups. (New Hampshire Bulletin)
That means this: while individual citizens’ contributions are capped and reportable, big money finds ways around transparency, funneling cash through PACs and advocacy groups that are not required to reveal who funds them. The result? Voters can see how much is spent — but often not who is behind the spending.
Enforcement Gaps: When Laws Mean Little Without Teeth
New Hampshire has campaign finance enforcement mechanisms on paper. RSA 664 requires registration and periodic reports from candidates and committees. (New Hampshire Secretary of State) But enforcement has been inconsistent.
In a rare instance of enforcement in 2025, the Attorney General’s office cited top legislative leaders for violations including missed reporting deadlines and discrepancies in finance filings. House Majority Leader Jason Osborne was fined $2,000 for failing to file required reports on time. (New Hampshire Public Radio)
That such enforcement is rare — and often involves political insiders — underscores a broader problem: rules without consistent oversight do little to curb influence. When leaders themselves slip on basic reporting, it fuels cynicism and questions about accountability.
Transparency Isn’t Just Money — It’s Access to Information
Campaign finance is just the tip of the transparency iceberg. Citizens need access not only to who funds politicians, but also to how decisions are made, how public money is spent, and what deals happen behind closed doors.
New Hampshire’s TransparentNH portal is an important step toward fiscal transparency, offering the public access to how state revenues and expenditures are allocated. (New Hampshire Government) But legislative efforts sometimes move in the opposite direction.
In early 2024, a bill that would have allowed local governments to charge steep hourly fees for fulfilling public records requests sparked heavy pushback. Critics warned that such fees could effectively block access to records that enable citizens to hold government accountable — a right protected under the state’s Right-to-Know law. The House ultimately agreed to reconsider the measure, illustrating how lobbying pressures can threaten transparency even at the municipal level. (New Hampshire Bulletin)
Dark Money and Political Influence: The Bigger Question
Perhaps the most challenging dynamic in New Hampshire is the rise of political spending that voters cannot trace back to its source.
While federal Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United protect independent political expenditures as free speech, they have also opened the floodgates to “dark money” — spending on elections by groups that do not disclose donors. At the state level, New Hampshire’s laws have not kept pace with these changes. (Campaign Legal Center)
Advocacy groups have warned that recent anti-transparency provisions for nonprofits shield contributors who may have deep ties to public officials or lucrative government contracts, potentially eroding trust in the political system. (Campaign Legal Center)
Who Holds Power in the Granite State?
In the end, the politics of power and accountability in New Hampshire come down to this: money still flows where influence is strongest, and transparency is only as good as the public’s ability to access and analyze the data.
Mechanisms like mandatory online reporting and public expenditure portals are progress. But until loopholes like unlimited undisclosed PAC contributions are closed, and enforcement of campaign laws is consistent and impartial, wealth and organized interests can outweigh citizens’ voices.
New Hampshire voters deserve not just disclosure, but clarity — a political system where who pays is as clear as who governs. This isn’t about partisanship; it’s about the foundational principle of democratic accountability.
Granite State Report will continue following campaign finance trends, enforcement actions, legislative transparency debates, and the impact of money on New Hampshire’s democratic process.
