Rich politicians loaning money to their own campaigns puts the average Oklahoman’s interests at risk

“Be afraid. Be very afraid” seems like a fitting slogan for Oklahoma elections this year.

While the tagline first originated in 1986 horror movie “The Fly”, it’s a relevant warning for all Oklahomans watching their election system be hijacked by wealthy candidates who loan their campaigns copious amounts of money.

The Oklahoman analyzed campaign finance reports filed through June and found that Oklahoma candidates reported loaning themselves a combined $27.5 million.

Even more alarming, nearly 40% of those personal loans have been assumed by one candidate — Republican gubernatorial hopeful Mike Mazzei, who also happens to be President Donald Trump’s pick for the office.

Ahead of the June primary election, Mazzei reported loaning himself over $10.8 million, using his business assets as collateral, The Oklahoman reported. By that time, he’d only raised about $650,000 from donors.

Mazzei’s opponent in the Aug. 25 primary runoff election, state Attorney General Gentner Drummond had loaned himself $3 million while raising $3.8 million, campaign finance reports showed.

Big spending might seem like business as usual in U.S. elections, which have gotten increasingly expensive following a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that has allowed unlimited campaign spending by outside groups.

But personal loans, particularly the gigantic ones accumulated by Mazzei, should set off alarms.

We’re still months away from the contested general election, and his campaign has already far outpaced the amount Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt loaned himself eight years ago. 

Stitt, who boasts he’s a self-made millionaire, loaned himself $4.9 million in his 2018 gubernatorial campaign and $2 million when running for his second term in 2022.

Early on while I was still learning the ins and outs of campaign finance, I used to shrug my shoulders at personal loans. After all, the common perception is when you’re starting a business or a new hobby, sometimes you have to be your biggest cheerleader and be willing to invest in yourself.

But doing the people’s work isn’t starting your own business.

The dirty secret tied to affluent politicians who loan their own money to their campaigns is that if they win, they generally expect to one day recoup those expenses.

While business owners recoup their investments from customers and sales, in politics, everyday Oklahomans generally don’t have the cash flow to foot the bill for $10 million personal loans.

You know who has deep pockets?

Lobbyists, political action committees and other groups with connections generally aren’t pitching in thousands of dollars because they’re good-natured philanthropists.

Most are likely handing candidates money in hopes of swaying the decisions made by elected officials or having a public official on speed dial when things aren’t going well.

That’s why traditionally the losing candidates, who loan themselves money, rarely recoup their losses and wind up writing off their loans as a cost of doing business.

High personal loan spending in state politics could kick the door wide open for dark money to run our state.

Don’t believe me? Here are a couple of hypotheticals of how special interests could factor in:

— Want to hike the costs of utilities again? It would sure be handy to have the ear (and goodwill) of an Oklahoma Corporation Commissioner, who decides the fate of such requests.

In fact, an Oklahoma Voice analysis of campaign finance data from 2018 through mid-year 2024 found that commissioners accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from those connected to the same businesses that we task them with regulating. It’s perfectly legal, but it sure raises some pesky ethical questions about whether there’s preferential treatment or access.

— What happens if the insurance industry doesn’t like a bill that the Legislature advances to help homeowners facing some of the highest costs in the nation? An industry lobbyist or executive who has an “in” with the governor or insurance commissioner might find it useful to pick up the phone and press him to veto or intervene. (We were one of your supporters, they might gently remind them.)

And, I don’t know about you, but I find myself suspicious of a candidate’s motives when they spend millions more of their personal funds than they stand to make in that public office. A four-year stay in the governor’s mansion, for instance, pays $185,000 a year. Due to eight-year term limits, the most a winner can expect to make is $1.48 million.

But even more alarming is that the growing practice of candidates loaning themselves enormous amounts of money makes it impossible for average people to launch a successful campaign for statewide office regardless of what great ideas they might have to Make Oklahoma Great Again, to borrow Stitt’s catchphrase. 

It may only be a matter of time before we start seeing that mentality trickle down to state House and Senate races.

Lobbyists, political action committees and dark money are the winners in Oklahoma right now.

If our lawmakers cannot find a way to level that playing field – perhaps by capping how much candidates can loan themselves – Oklahomans will find their voices further relegated to the sidelines.