By Jason Murphey

As the Oklahoma grassroots continues to deploy an ever-growing array of tools – tools meant to be used by brave candidates to educate the public about the treachery of their incumbent elected officials – a common theme has emerged.

The observant member of the grassroots won’t miss it.

Whether it’s the Republican Platform Index from Oklahoma Grassroots, the Capitol Conformity Tracker and People’s Audit from The Oklahoma State Capital, or the venerable Oklahoma Conservative Index from the Oklahoma Constitution newspaper – the gold standard for measuring a legislator’s conservatism dating back to 1979 – many of the highest and most consistent performers share two defining characteristics.

And one of these characteristics is the secret sauce – the single most important answer to the biggest problem faced by Oklahoma voters.

Notably: The high-performing legislators are almost always the poorest performers on special-interest scorecards – particularly those produced by entities like the State Chamber of Commerce, whose badly misnamed “Prosperity Tracker” functions far less as a measure of prosperity than as an inverse proxy for all things Americana and the values of the Founding Fathers. This relationship is not incidental. It is significant and repeatedly observed – over, and over, and over again.

As a rule of thumb, if your legislator – or, and this is important for the integrity of the grassroots movement, a former or current legislator seeking your vote for statewide office – ranks highly on these special interests indexes, then more likely than not they are not a friend of limited government. They are statists: believers in, and consistent supporters of, larger government controlled by central planners who have overseen a steady expansion in the size and scope of government, all to the benefit of monied special interests. That reality is difficult to come to terms with, but it is undeniable.

Second – and the magic sauce – the high performers on the grassroots indices are overwhelmingly from a very small subset of legislators who have taken a clear and public pledge to refuse lobbyist influence: by not taking lobbyist money for their campaigns and, in many cases, by refusing the inappropriate – and frankly should-be-illegal – practice of lobbyist-directed gift-giving altogether.

This pledge is best described as the abstinence approach: abstaining even from the appearance of impropriety.

Of the eight Oklahoma House members designated by The People’s Audit as worthy of re-election and support, a majority have made a substantive attempt to implement some variation of this commitment – often at great cost to their campaign accounts. Of the remainder – the many, many members who should be replaced – there is not, to the knowledge of this writer, a single known practitioner of abstinence.

Lawmakers who take the abstinence approach want their voters to know something very simple and very important: their most sacred duty – their vote, the one thing even the most powerful Speaker of the House cannot technically take away from them, no matter how many other responsibilities he has stripped – is beyond reproach. You may disagree with the vote, but you will never need to wonder whether money was the real reason for it.

And now, with an ever-growing sample size – lawmakers who have made the no-lobbyist-money commitment and subsequently overperformed on grassroots scorecards while trailing uniparty politicians (including the most liberal Democrats) on State Chamber rankings – even the casual observer is led to several notable conclusions:

First, the abstinence pledge is the secret sauce. It is the closest thing we have to a real solution to the age-old problem of deceptive politicians campaigning one way in their districts and voting another way at the Capitol.

Second, it very clearly matters whether a legislator takes lobbyist money. The historical record, dating back at least to 2007, shows that lawmakers who refuse this money demonstrate a unique and consistent ability to say no to special interests. Those who do not, overwhelmingly slide into full participation in the legalized corruption – the great immorality by which the few cash out at the expense of the many.

Third, there has not been a single member of the House who campaigned as a conservative, took the abstinence commitment, substantively kept that commitment, and subsequently betrayed our values. Not a single one.

The all-too-often repeated line from legislators trying to serve two masters – the special interests and the people – “I don’t let lobbyist money affect my vote” is exposed by the record. The abstinence practitioners have held their ground and become champions of what is good and right, while so many others have betrayed the people’s values – or, at best, become “milquetoast” and weak advocates, tortured by constant compromise.

Then, this is the answer to the cynicism problem. So many people have checked out of the system because they believe all politicians are corrupt. Those observers have mostly – and rightly – concluded that for far too many officeholders, public service has become primarily about personal advancement and enrichment. It is the example set by abstinence legislators that provides a vital counterweight: a small but powerful hope that offsets the cynicism that sidelines so many idealistic would-be voters.

And finally, grassroots activists who are in this fight for the right reasons cannot be faulted for reaching a simple conclusion: my efforts are best spent advocating for, donating to, and working on behalf of candidates who are willing to make this same commitment.

That is a conclusion I have personally reached only after years of working on and assisting campaigns. If a candidate is unwilling to make this commitment, then – save for the rarest of notable exceptions – my enthusiasm and willingness to assist simply is not there.

For one thing, having seen firsthand the degrading effects of legalized corruption on the human psyche, I know it would be a disservice to send a candidate to the Capitol without first encouraging them to draw clear lines they will not cross. That corrupt place kills the human spirit, ruins relationships, and steals souls. Helping elect someone who has not made firm commitments to avoid those traps would be a profound disservice. Why would I do that to them?

For another, the growing body of evidence – including the observations laid out here – suggests the abstinence approach really is the answer. Candidates whose hearts are in the right place will see it. And when they do, they will realize they have the opportunity to become part of something genuinely rare: staking a claim at the early stages of a movement that has the potential to transform government, restore it to the original principles of the founders, and preserve the American republic itself.

If a candidate is not inspired by that vision – if they refuse to stake their claim to it – then a fair question must be asked: Why not? Why wouldn’t they want to be part of something so significant?

So, as I seek to allocate my most valuable God-given asset – my time – toward campaigns in the 2026 election cycle, good stewardship suggests the following:

Support the eight House members who met the criteria for re-election according to The People’s Audit.

And support those who are willing to take the abstinence pledge.

I strongly recommend the same for anyone who truly cares about making a difference – and who is not interested in merely marking time by re-electing the same types of politicians and expecting a different result. Whether it’s your time, your money, or your reputation, save it all for candidates who are willing to forgo the easy money, embrace abstinence from even the appearance of impropriety, publicly reject the corrupting influence of the lobby, and demonstrate – through real sacrifice – that their loyalty is to the principles of the people, not the corrupt system.