As with all things good, when they start to catch on and when the grifters who make their money begin to realize the value of this proposition they want to get in on the action.
This election cycle is the breakout year for what is the real answer to the problem of a big state government that only gets bigger, more inefficient, and, frankly, more corrupt—even as we elect “small government” Republicans who campaign on the principles of Adam Smith and Ronald Reagan, only to deliver on the concepts of Keynes and Krugman.
That solution? Well, regular readers will know it well; it’s what I have commonly termed as the abstinence pledge. It’s the expectation that our elected officials will move into the 21st century in terms of ethics and apply the standard that applies to all professionals: that they will not take monetary benefit from those who depend on the decision-making ability of those who make the policy and take the money.
And as the state prepares to publish the official ballot, we can now say that, for the first time ever—for the very first time—there are a double-digit number of candidates making this commitment.
And for the very first time, ever, every Republican primary voter in the state will have the opportunity to vote for a candidate who has taken this commitment, as one of those candidates is at the very top of the ballot: Jake Merrick campaigns for the governor’s position with this as one of the foremost points of his platform, and due to that role, he has been able to go statewide promoting the concept and spreading the good news that the people of Oklahoma no longer have to settle for the status quo, for the legalized corruption, and for a system that has created so much cynicism in the general electorate, who have rightly concluded that most of their politicians are no better than crooks, leeches upon society, running a big grift, and the sleaziest of the sleazy.
When Jake Merrick asserts that he can run and hold office on a platform of refusing the obvious conflict of interest that the great majority of other candidates gaslight the public into believing is not a conflict of interest, he is restoring the people’s belief in a broken system—and in the idea that that system, maybe—just maybe—could be fixed.
And though Jake Merrick faces long odds—and even if he does not win—he has already been a historic pioneer. By going on stage time and again and spreading the good news about this concept to listeners who did not even know it was an option, he is giving that message for the first time and sending a signal of what is to come in the next few years: a new generation of candidates yet to raise the standard. Win or lose, just by accomplishing this, and putting the no lobbyist pledge on stage for all to see, he’s already laid claim to a historic first and an amazing legacy. It is a calling for him to be in this place at this time, spreading that word, letting people see the light, and showing that it is possible to realize a higher standard and to reform the broken system.
But that’s not all. For what I believe is the first time ever, the number of legislative candidates who have also made this commitment reaches into the double digits.
In some parts of the state, there will be ballots where voters, for the first time ever, will have the privilege of picking no-lobbyist-money candidates in no less than three distinct races, where a Senate candidate and a House candidate are joining Merrick in making the commitment to raise the standard.
But here’s where things start to take a bit of an interesting turn.
As with all things good, when they start to catch on and when the grifters who make their money begin to realize the value of this proposition they want to get in on the action.
This isn’t a bad thing, in that it shows the great value of this commitment, and that even those who make their living playing the corrupt political game recognize the intrinsic value of once again being able to inspire people back to a mindset where they can believe again—that their vote has value, that they really can make a difference, and that not all politicians are corrupt.
But of course, those of us who have advanced this concept as the leading tool by which the people can reclaim their government from the legalized corruption that dominates it today must do what we can to protect the integrity of our valuable proposition. For those who would abuse the trust of the people—who would inspire them to once again believe that they can make a difference, and then, subsequent to that, betray that trust—will do far more harm than those who just tell the same old lie: that “it doesn’t make a difference when I take the lobbyist money because it won’t affect me.”
In the future years, we will no doubt be challenged to specialize and finally craft the tools, the means, and the methods by which we protect the integrity of the commitment. More on that to come; but in the short run, it’s important to explain and expose the scam by which those who would seek to draft on the commitment, without actually making the sacrifice that’s required to really reject that special interest influence, are perpetrating. To understand how to defeat this particularly devious scam, we must first understand the scam.
It works like this.
A consultant advises the candidate that they should take the no-lobbyist pledge. However, the consultant subsequently explains that after the election, that candidate can quickly form their re-election committee for the next time, and the re-election committee will be able to take the dirty money.
Of course, this defeats the whole purpose. Few lobbyists are going to contribute to a new candidate who is competing in either an open seat or challenging a co-opted incumbent. For the most part, lobbyists are going to stay out of that fight, wait to see who the winner is, and then forever pledge their support to that winner, immediately hedging their bets and then, once they have corrupted the newly elected office holder, keep them as the new co-opted incumbent in office for as long as that incumbent keeps doing their bidding.
For a first-time candidate, refusing lobbyist money is hardly a sacrifice. Done right—by informing and inspiring voters—it will deliver a five-to-ten-point boost, creating a major advantage with virtually no downside, since their lobbyist support was never significant to begin with.
Should they win, however, the commitment becomes far more significant. A candidate who has pledged to refuse lobbyist money must then follow through when it begins to arrive in two forms: first, tens of thousands of dollars in campaign funds—money that can be used for personal “officeholder” expenses, and to deter future challengers; and second, the steady stream of perks—fine dining, entertainment, and social access at Oklahoma City’s most exclusive venues—where professional relationships with lobbyists quickly evolve into personal ones, and with them, a level of influence that shapes that legislator’s actions and best explains the many, many betrayals of our values.
So, those candidates who have been advised by their consultant to take the pledge and then subsequently, as soon as the day after the election, to in effect betray that pledge do much more harm to the integrity of the system than those who just straight-up admit to the fact that they will be taking the lobbyist money.
No, the real abstinence commitment isn’t that the candidate will refrain from taking money prior to election day, when the lobbyists aren’t going to give it anyway, but rather that throughout the next term of office, at no point will they take either the campaign contributions or the personal gifts, and thus they will be immune from the number one co-opting influence of officeholders: money. Thus, by making this commitment, they are making it clear that in a world of legalized corruption, they will not be corrupt, and the standards that apply to just about every other profession—that the decision-maker does not take monetary influence from those who depend on that decision-maker for their livelihood—are applied in this most important of arenas: the public trust.
So when you are approached and solicited by a no-lobbyist candidate, it’s important to ask the questions that determine if this candidate is a part of the new scam to take advantage of the trust of the voters.
Will the candidate agree to refrain from all lobbyist largess throughout the entirety of their next term of office?
If they can’t make this commitment, then this candidate has either knowingly or unknowingly become a part of the new, great scam to take advantage of the greatest tool that we have for returning our government back to the conservative values of the people and to a world where legalized corruption no longer thrives.
The true and actual commitment requires that the candidate make the commitment to refuse all lobbyist political contributions from both the lobbyists and the principals—in other words, the employers of the lobbyist—for the entire term during which that person holds office, whether or not the person is running for reelection and has a new committee.
To make any other commitment aside from this is simply to draft on and scam the very best hopes and beliefs of the voters.
Secondly, we’ve now reached the point where there are those who have made the commitment in the past to refuse this money, and they have no doubt inspired the voters and inspired a new belief within them. But now those office holders are under tremendous pressure to give up the exceptionalism, to take the easy path, and to give in to the temptation to take that dirty money. They see so many other politicians taking the money, and they can’t help but give in to the pressure.
When one makes this bad choice, it’s truly heartbreaking. But we must come to terms with the fact that these types of betrayals are sure to happen, and when they do, the grassroots who dedicate their time and energy to these various candidates are well advised to place that time and energy with the other candidates for office—that ever-growing number of candidates for office that are still intent on keeping this very special commitment.
Those who would support the candidates for office who have betrayed the pledge, and help them get re-elected, perhaps because of personal loyalty or relationship or because they are unable to come to terms with the betrayal, are propagating the same corrupt system that will never end so long as we the people allow the big grift to continue.
There are now plenty of other no-lobbyist-money candidates now that desperately need the support and the energy of the grassroots.
So with very rare exception, my best advice to those who want to make a difference with their time and money is to find and identify the no-lobbyist-money candidates and then get on board and build a relationship, and ensure that not only does that candidate win on election day, but they know that as long as they keep their commitment and as long as they vote in accordance with constitutional principles, your support will always be there for them, and they will never have to get scared, get fearful, and give in to the temptation.
This is how we take our government back.
Help spread this important message; share it with your personal network. And, if you have yet to subscribe, don’t miss the opportunity to get your free or paid subscription, and support this work. We are just getting started.
The No-Lobbyist Money Movement Hits Critical Mass
Click the title to read the full report at Jason Murphey Blog
April 18, 2026 at 11:13AM - J Murphey
RSS Feed
