Super PACs, PACs, & Lobbyists vs “The People”

TAKE AWAY FROM THIS ARTICLE:

In today’s political environment, who are the sovereigns: The People, political action committees or lobbyists?
Does dark money influence an elected official’s vote?
Oklahoma State Senator Bill Coleman, a case study.
Examine who pays for the campaign advertisement.

Sovereign: One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit.

from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

“Whoever has the gold makes the rules” is an often-quoted expression, meaning that those with wealth, power, or resources control the decisions and set the standards.

“In free governments, the rulers are the servants and the people are their superiors and sovereigns” Benjamin Franklin

Super PACs, PACs and Lobbyists: The Political Money Machine Everyone Complains About and Politicians Won’t Unplug

If you have followed politics for any time, you have heard “Super PAC” used as a curse word – an excuse and sometimes a business model.

In Oklahoma, with an 80% Republican majority, Super PACs, PACs and lobbyists support incumbents that vote for their agenda and punish those that oppose their agenda which results in bigger government, less accountability, financial tax favor, (corporate welfare), or protection from regulation for them and restrictions for smaller companies. This typically results in less freedom, more taxes or/and larger government. One certainty, political favor is for the high tower crowd or powerfully connected. These offerings favor large corporations, associations, unions, NGOs and special interests. To assure victory for the allied incumbent and, when there is a true conservative opponent, rest assured dark money will find its way into the campaign.

Super PACs, PACs and lobbyists are not just an ugly feature of modern politics. They are one of the cleanest ways for people and entities with money to deceive the voter with false claims. Too many voters derive their opinions from mailers, texts, billboards, or emails and never come in contact with the established office holder. The typical voter is too busy with work and family to dig into the voting records of these elected officials. (See resources for guidance at the end of this article).

Let’s look at an examples of a Super PAC’s tools

* Candidate gets flattened by attack ads? Super PACs.

* Insiders get resources dedicated and support for their campaign? Super PACs.

* Millionaire dumps cash into a race? Super PACs.

* Party insiders prop up some polished empty suit or lacky for the establishment. Yes, Super PACs again.

Everybody complains about them. Almost nobody in power wants to get rid of them.

That tells you something.

Let’s not be naïve. Democrats do it. Republicans do it. In Oklahoma, 80% of our state legislators are Republican, but very few conservative bills are heard in committee or on the floor. Why? Because dark money has an advantage. These money groups who live in the shadows of reporting donors, leverage these funds to defeat conservatives and quell the voices of the elected officials that represent those principles, the grassroots voter, “We the People”. The “trans-republicans” have used these tools to purge true conservative legislators.

An Example from the New York Times

“Republican Purges and Feuds in Oklahoma Show the Pitfalls of One-Party Rule”

The New York Times article by Campbell Robertson. (Nov. 2, 2018)

The 2018 fight inside the Oklahoma House was largely a clash between House leadership and a bloc of very conservative Republicans often called the “Platform Caucus.” These legislators based their votes on the Oklahoma State Republican Party Platform, which was developed by the grassroots of the Republican Party.

According to the Associated Press, Oklahoma Representative Chris Kannady openly acknowledged helping organize an effort against some members of his own party after disputes over the 2018 tax package that funded teacher pay raises. One of the largest tax increases in Oklahoma history. Campaign finance records showed he contributed to challengers running against certain incumbents, and he described a broad coalition that wanted to remove members viewed as obstructing the caucus or leadership’s direction.

The reporting specifically identified several conservatives who lost after being targeted by challengers and outside spending:

The New York Times reported that of the 19 House Republicans who voted against the tax package, only four remained in the general election after retirements, term limits, and primary defeats. It described the effort as a “housecleaning” operation and identified Kannady as the “ringleader” of what he called “the Project.”

The opposition to the tax increase challenged House leadership. House leaders and allied Republicans argued that the caucus could not govern effectively with members who consistently opposed leadership priorities.

Outside Money

A major part of the controversy involved the Virginia-based Conservative Alliance PAC, which reportedly spent roughly $750,000 on mailers, radio ads, and other attacks against several of the same conservative incumbents. Questions about who funded the PAC became a significant issue because the organization did not disclose individual donors.

The Quote that Drew the Most Attention

The New York Times article quoted Kannady saying:

“Once you cut out the cancer that was attacking us…” while discussing the defeated conservatives and the future of the Republican caucus. That quote became one of the most frequently cited lines from the controversy.

Political impact

The result was a noticeably more leadership-aligned House Republican caucus going into the 2019 session. Supporters argued it made the caucus more governable and less internally divided.Criticsargued it weakened the conservative wing of the House and demonstrated the length and span of dirty tricks of leadership-backed dark money in Republican primaries.

The Republican House is still suffering the repercussions of that coup, with a autocratic lead liberal leadership with its members falling in line to their dictates, political pressures or even bifurcation.

After the Super PACs bombard the voter with their guys exaggerated or false achievements or blast the challenger with attack ads, then the candidate can sweep in with their Madison Avenue glossies full of self-aggrandizing fluff. What an effective one-two punch to elevate the establishment candidate and bury the grassroots challenger.

Most Americans hear the phrase and never get a straight answer on what a Super PAC actually is. That confusion is not an accident. Confused, misguided and misinformed voters are easier to manage, which is the intent of the disinformation and false claims promoted to the voter.

So here is the plain-English version.

A Super PAC is an independent expenditure-only political committee. According to the Federal Election Commission, it can raise unlimited money from individuals, corporations, labor unions, and other political committees. (Much of this money raised will be used to support Democrats and trans-Republicans alike, elected officials who will carry the Super PACs water.) The tradeoff, supposedly, is that it cannot give directly to a candidate and cannot legally coordinate with a candidate’s campaign or a political party. Unlimited money, but “independent” spending only.

That is the theory, anyway.

In practice, it means a candidate cannot take a $100,000 or more given straight into the campaign account, but an allied outside group can vacuum up that same money, turn it into ads, mailers, digital warfare, opposition research, and enough manufactured momentum to make a weak or sell-out legislator look like, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”. In our case Oklahoma City. These campaign ads give the impression that, “their guy” is the next Thomas Jefferson, but in reality, they govern more like Bernie Sanders, selling our country down the toilet for position and power.

And there it is, the loophole-shaped canyon at the center of modern American politics.

Free speech or Political Manipulation

Supporters call this free speech. Critics call it legalized influence peddling dressed up in constitutional language. One thing is for sure, the voter and individual donor is at a disadvantage, the playing field is rigged, and not toward the hard-working family trying to make ends-meet.

The legal theory behind Super PACs is that independent spending is different from direct giving. In other words, if a billionaire funds a group that spends millions to help a candidate, that is treated differently than simply handing the candidate the money himself.

Normal voters are expected to nod solemnly and pretend that distinction makes this feel clean.

It does not.

This is where people start rolling their eyes, and rightly so. If a campaign operative leaves a candidate’s team on Friday, lands at a Super PAC on Monday, and starts pushing the same message with better lighting and a larger budget, voters are supposed to believe it is all gloriously independent because the paperwork was filed correctly.

Surrrre!

And if you believe that, I have a bipartisan reform package to sell you.

To be fair, the legal line is real. The FEC defines an independent expenditure as spending that expressly advocates for the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate and is not made in consultation, cooperation, or at the request or suggestion of the candidate, campaign, or party. If that independence disappears, the spending can be treated as coordinated communication, and that triggers a different set of rules. So no, this is not technically a no-rules free-for-all.

But let’s not pretend the existence of rules means the system is honest.

Super PACs matter because money does not guarantee victory, but it absolutely buys dominance. It buys airtime. It buys digital saturation. It buys mailboxes, phone screens, consultants, polling, research, and enough repetition to pound a message into the public mind until people mistake volume for truth.

The system is rigged by our election laws and regulations, penalizing the citizen with different rules than these created entities.

Super PACs are a weapon. And like most weapons in American politics, they usually end up in the hands of the people with the deepest pockets, the slipperiest lawyers, and the least amount of shame.

Another Oklahoma Case in Super PACs and PACs-Senate District 10

There have been 20 mailers for Bill Coleman mailed in the last 3 months, seven authorized by the Coleman Campaign and 13 by non-campaign organizations, Super PACs, PACs and Lobbyists. Here is a brief description of those.

Blueprint for Oklahoma’s Future is a Super PAC and has sent out 5 mailers on Coleman’s behalf. Each mailer, depending on the number of mailers sent can cost between 4,000 to $7,000. You do the math. When you visit Blueprint’s website, it tells you little about who they are or what they advocate. This out-of-state organization directs you to two different addresses, both in Tulsa. Address one is a P.O. Box at a UPS store on 71^st and Yale. The second address does not exist. The second address stated as an office suite is, in reality, a residence located there which faces an adjacent street. Why would Senator Coleman allow this deception? The campaign rules are rigged to the benefit of the establishment that carries the water for their overlords.

Bill Coleman is the 2^nd highest recipient of gifts in the legislature.

Let’s examine a few of Bill Coleman’s votes

SB 1591 Giving the Illegal Alien Invaders an Official Oklahoma ID

Not just once, but twice, Bill Coleman voted to grant Oklahoma driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants – a plan pushed by a liberal immigration lawyer from south Oklahoma City. That vote would reward illegal border-crossers with official state identification, with all of its implications such as potentially giving drug cartels and human-smugglers easier access to banking and financial systems. Instead of protecting our borders, Coleman helped advance the agenda of those who violate our laws. SB1591 (2022)

SB 1620 Coleman Authored a Dangerous Expansion of the Surveillance State

Bill Coleman didn’t just vote for license-plate scanners – he wrote the bill that would unleash Orwellian mass-tracking technology across Oklahoma. These systems are handed out through questionable, sole-source contracts, come with known cyber-security risks, and are ripe for abuse. Even worse, their unconstitutional deployment could lead to over turned convictions, harming public safety and re-victimizing Oklahoma crime victims. And while law-abiding citizens get monitored in real time, these systems often exempt immigration enforcement, letting those who crossed our border illegally avoid accountability while tracking citizens who are playing by the rules. Fortunately, only 13 Senators voted for Coleman’s bill and it was defeated by a large margin. SB1620 (2024)

SB 670 Coleman Voted to Mandate Government-Designed Mental-Health Screenings on Every Oklahoman

SB670 forces doctors and nurses to administer a state-approved psychological test to every patient — including your children — just to see a primary-care provider. If a provider refuses, they can be punished. This law empowers unelected medical boards to define mental health ideology for the entire state and gather private data on every Oklahoman who seeks care. SB670 (2025)

SB 623 Silencing Christian Counselors from Giving Biblical Counsel

Silencing Christian Counselors from Giving Biblical Counsel Coleman voted for SB 623. It was sponsored by a liberal Democrat from Tulsa and would align Oklahoma social-worker licensing standards with national woke activist groups. If a Christian social worker – including those serving in our schools refused to embrace progressive “gender-affirming” ideology or provided counseling consistent with biblical teaching on sexuality, these liberal organizations could brand them “unethical” and the state could censure them or even yank their license to practice, basically putting them out of a job. Fortunately, though Coleman and the Senate passed the bill, the House didn’t approve it, but it was too close of a call for comfort. This was something that one would expect in Soviet Russia, not the United States of America, SB623 (2019)

HB 2147. Allowing City Government to Foreclose on Private Property

Coleman supported dismantling long-standing safeguards that once prevented city governments from overreaching. With his vote, cities can now move to foreclose on and take private property, using code enforcement as a weapon – allowing aggressive code enforcement to become a pretext for government seizure of private land. HB2147 (2025)

HB 1712. Coleman’s Toll on Your Freedom

Coleman backed the “Road User Charge Pilot,” a plan designed to pave the way for tolling virtually every mile Oklahomans drive – using intrusive tracking technology to monitor your driving actions and charge you for them. The state poured millions into this experimental program, a level of waste that is almost as shocking as the idea behind it. It didn’t end there. When the pilot wrapped up, the program’s publicly promoted website, the very link citizens were instructed to use to interact with state officials, fell into the hands of domain squatters tied to offshore gambling interests, exposing participants to needless privacy and security threats. H81712 (2021)

SB 511. Coleman Voted to Enable Illegal Drug Use

When Bill Coleman voted for a state authorized program that distributes free drug paraphernalia for recreational use, he sent a dangerous message: illegal drug use is acceptable — and the government will help you do it. Rather than insisting on recovery, accountability, or treatment, Coleman supported giving users the tools to stay trapped in addiction. His choice helped push deadly drug culture deeper into our communities. SB511 (2021)

In addition to the above votes, Bill Coleman scored a 35.9% out of a 100 on the Republican Platform Scorecard.

I will leave it up to you to decide if this senator reflects your values or values of the establish money donors.

And that is the real story.

Now let’s discuss the lobbyist and PACs and the role they play.

Lobbyists, PACs vs. Main Street: How Lobbyists and PACs Quietly Run the Game

If you want to understand why ordinary Americans feel ignored by elected officials, start here: lobbyists get meetings and wine and dine your elected officials, PACs get leverage, and grassroots voters get ignored and too often the shaft.

That is not bitterness. That is the system working exactly as designed.

Lobbyists and PACs are not the same thing, but they live in the same swampy ecosystem.

A lobbyist is paid to influence government action. That can mean writing and creating the legislation that favors their industry, literally handing lawmakers polished language they can pretend they wrote themselves, promoting a bill, stopping a bill, shaping regulations, or nudging agencies.

A PAC, or political action committee, is a vehicle for political money. PACs raise and spend funds to influence elections. Some give directly to candidates. Some spend independently. Some are tied to corporations, unions, trade groups, or ideological causes.

Different tools. Same pressure campaign.

And from a grassroots perspective, the problem is not that Americans have the right to petition government. Of course they do. The First Amendment is not the enemy here.

The problem is that influence has become the institutionalized and financialized; it has become the norm with most of our elected officials

If your side has ten fired-up parents showing up after work to make their case, and the other side has lobbyists, lawyers, consultants, PAC money, and a media rollout already scheduled for Thursday morning, guess whose message lands first and normally executed?

You already know.

What lobbyists actually do

Lobbyists exist to influence public policy. In our capital, that usually means lobbyists often:

* write the bill and legislators attach their name

• meet with members of the legislature for influence

• press for or against legislation

• influence executive branch agencies

• help shape regulatory language

• organize campaigns around specific policy outcomes

* Wine and dine for face time and influence

Sometimes they represent industries. Sometimes unions. Sometimes activist groups. Sometimes nonprofits. Not all lobbyists are causes are bad. Some lobbyists really do provide expertise. That part is true. There are exceptions to the typical lobbyists that actually support the U.S. Constitution – your God-given rights. Some lobbyists may be an expert in a technical area. That part is also true.

But mostly they advocate for causes that should never get within fifty feet of public policy and do not benefit the citizen. But let’s not play dumb. Their value is not just information. Their value is access.

What PACs actually do?

PACs exist to collect and deploy political money.

That usually means:

• raising contributions from donors

• giving money to candidates or committees, depending on the PAC type

• funding ads, mailers, texts, digital campaigns, and turnout efforts

• building political leverage before and after Election Day

In plain English, lobbyists work the policy side and PACs work the election side. And funny enough, those worlds tend to know each other very well. Because of course they do.

Why the grassroots should care.

This is the part elected officials never want to say out loud. The issue is not just corruption in the cartoon-villain sense. It is dependency. When lawmakers spend hours every week fundraising, when staff rely on talking points from outside influence shops, and when legislation gets shaped by people paid to shape it, the grassroots citizen is no longer at the center of representative government.

Here is an afterthought.

That is why people stop trusting institutions. Not because they are uninformed. Because they can see the pattern. The donor class gets face time. The lobbyist gets a seat at the table. The citizen gets a nod and a thank you, now carry on. That is not healthy self-government. That is managed access.

In a crowded primary, a contested race or a low-information race, that matters. A lot. The side with more money gets more chances to define the battlefield before most voters even realize a war has started.

And this matters especially on the right.

Grassroots conservatives like to think energy and conviction are enough. Sometimes they are with an engaged and motivated electorate. But often the grassroots walks into a knife fight carrying yard signs while the donor class arrives with media consultants, bundled cash, and a well-honed plan and the tools to execute those plans.

So, the next time some candidate claims he is running a pure, people-powered, grassroots campaign while a “totally independent” group drops six to seven figures to save them, you are allowed to laugh.

Quietly, if you are in church.

Less quietly, if you are paying attention.

Because in the state capital, “independent” is often a legal term, not a believable one.

Resources for the Voter

OKGrassroots 2025 Legislator Scorecard: