In 2008 I did an economic impact analysis of the caucuses for Iowa
http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_12911.pdf

I found then that " Iowa received just 4.4 percent of all campaign spending by the measured candidates during the last six months of 2007."

How can that be you ask?

1/

While only measuring the last two quarters of that wide open caucus for both parties, the data indicated that spending in both Iowa and NH combined was only 7.7% of total.

Where, then, were they spending their money?

2/

First, all candidates spent large fractions in the states from which they came. That's where their operations were, that's where research was going on, and that's where their key professionals lived.

Other large fractions accumulated to VA and DC.

3/

And while the candidates do buy massive amounts of media in the run-up to the caucuses and the NH primary, the vast majority of that ad production occurs outside of both states and is run on in state media that does not increase employment or payroll to run their ads.

4/

Travel is coordinated centrally, as well. As are myriad other activities. Oh, and fund-raising spending, which is substantial, occurs in states with lots of money. That ain't Iowa or NH.

5/

When all is said and done, I estimated the spending boosted the state's GDP by .0085 percent

What! cry the reporters who interviewed me. We were gouged on hotel rooms and car rentals when we came and there were 1,000s of us. To which I replied ...

6/

But of course, but our economy is really, really big and you all are, despite your vaunted platforms, really, really small economically in the aggregate, but thanks for visiting.

7/

Ah, but in recent years we see so much more dark money ads. Again, those ads are not produced in Iowa and running those ads requires no more workers in media outlets that are now mostly owned externally -- no real impact.

8/end