More than a dozen candidates from both parties were crisscrossing the country to meet and greet supporters - not necessarily grass-root supporters, but wealthy contributors willing to fill the coffers needed to run a national political campaign.

The real race - the race for the money - was on. Some candidates won't make it past this stage.

This will be the longest, most expensive and most negative presidential campaign in U.S. history. In 2004, George W. Bush and John Kerry spent $1 billion on the election. It's estimated that $3 billion will be spent on the 2008 campaign.

Money is the greatest corrupting influence in partisan politics, and with $3 billion in play, who knows what kind of shenanigans we'll witness in the coming year?

Three billion dollars spent on television ads, campaign materials and smear tactics, much of it misleading or untrue - particularly advertising from independent-expenditure 527 committees, which are hard to hold accountable for what they say or do.

The amount of money wasted is offensive. Imagine all the ways that money could be used to enact real change and improve the quality of life for thousands of Americans.

Campaign finance legislation like McCain-Feingold was introduced to curb political spending, but it hasn't worked. No sooner are rules put in place than someone finds a loophole or a way to get around them.

The only solution is to reform the presidential primaries and significantly shorten the campaign season.

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it outline how the nominating process for president is supposed to occur. Nor does it offer guidelines for presidential primaries.

Iowa and New Hampshire, the states that host the first caucus and primary in the nation, respectively, have parlayed their status as front-runners into cottage industries. There's more economic self-preservation than principle in their cries anytime someone suggests wholesale changes to the primary process.

To protect its turf, New Hampshire moved its primary up to Jan. 8. Granite State voters will cast their ballots before some Christmas decorations have come down.

The significance of this non-binding primary is overrated. New Hampshire is a small state with only 1.3 million people and four electoral votes, yet its voters command a disproportionate amount of attention from the candidates and the national press.

The public needs to rebel against this system.

The key to reform is to shorten the campaign period. Extended campaigns give more time to raise and spend money, and they occupy the broadcast airwaves ad nauseam. The public wearies of long campaigns.

Voters would pay better attention to a shorter campaign season, forcing candidates to focus more clearly on their basic messages and hold substantive discussions.

To pare back our current, bloated campaign process, we should set April 15 of the presidential election year as the date by which the candidates must file their exploratory committee report. Fundraising should be limited prior to that filing, as under current law.

Second, candidates may file their declaration of candidacy anytime thereafter, but then, and only then, can they raise money or begin their campaign.

To eliminate all of the jockeying between states on who should vote first, we ought to have a national primary for both political parties. In the event that no candidate gets a majority vote in the party primary, a runoff election between the top two finishers should take place within 30 days.

Minority or third parties would be governed by the same rules. In the event a third-party candidate receives 10 percent of the composite vote of all primaries, he or she would be entitled to appear in all national debates.

Such reform would greatly diminish concern over 527 committees and political action committees because they would not have time to fill huge campaign chests and spend lavishly as they do now. Special-interest money would be greatly reduced.

Parties could still hold conventions, but rather than nominate a candidate, the conventions would become more of a showcase for the party and candidate to discuss the issues. National debates and public appearances would become more important, and candidates - and voters - would be better served by meaningful discourse.

I recognize that each of these suggestions would likely face strong opposition from one source or another, and that reform will take a great deal of cooperation from the Congress of the United States, state legislatures and the political parties, but it would be worth it.

Problems may arise with such massive change, but these problems can be resolved if the political parties are serious about reform. These measures would solve some of the most urgent problems now obstructing the American electoral process.

---

* RICHARD RICHARDS, a native of Ogden, served as chairman of the Republican National Committee, and worked on the presidential campaigns of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.