Reply #5: I may not be expressing myself well.

[RaleighNCDUer]

Say you have two candidates - one with 1mil and one with 10mil to spend.

Go to Iowa, and you've got what, 30 independent TV stations across the state. The lesser candidate can afford TV ads on all 30 stations. As can the wealthy candidate. The wealthy can buy MORE ads on those stations, as well as more print and doorhangers, etc., but everybody will be fully exposed to the poorer candidate as well.

Go to California and you've got 300 independent TV stations. The lesser candidate can afford ads in 40 of them, the wealthy one can afford all 300. The poorer candidate can print up 100,000 door hangers and pay for their distribution. The rich one can print 2,000,000 and distribute them.

In which state is the less funded candidate going to go unheard?

In IA, the wealthy candidate's advantage is minimized. The poorer candidate has a shot at winning, and winning can bring in enough further donations to boost competitiveness in the future contests. OTOH, if the poorer candidate is forced to compete in California first, the rich candidate can completely overwhelm him, and thus destroy any chance of competition in further contests.

This isn't like a game where everybody goes into it equally matched, and dependent upon skill alone. The money decides who plays.