We invited both campaigns to our community fair and one wants conditions that would make it their event

I help organize a neighborhood fair with food tables, children's activities, and booths for local groups. Because an election is approaching, the committee decided to offer equal booth space to both campaigns in one local race. The invitation gave the same deadline, table size, location rules, and ban on amplified sound.

One campaign accepted. The other said its candidate would attend only if introduced from the stage, allowed to place signs near the entrance, and guaranteed that the opposing campaign's volunteers would not approach the candidate. The coordinator called these ordinary security and visibility requests. To me, they would turn equal booth access into a featured appearance.

We want candidates to feel safe. We can provide a clear arrival contact, keep aisles open, enforce conduct rules, and respond to harassment. We cannot promise that political opponents in a public fair will never speak to one another. We also cannot give one candidate the microphone without offering the same opportunity under the same format.

Some committee members are tempted to accept because having a candidate present would draw attendance. Others want to withdraw both invitations to avoid controversy. I think the better response is a written menu that applies equally: booth only; a brief stage introduction naming all participating community groups; or a timed candidate greeting available to both campaigns. No campaign signs outside its assigned space. The candidate can decline.

The uncomfortable part is that formal equality can still produce an uneven event if only one candidate attends. We should not describe absence as refusal to engage without accurately stating the offered terms.

How should a community event balance equal access, safety, and the practical appeal of a candidate appearance? At what point does accommodating a campaign convert the event into campaign infrastructure?