The transactions range from a $2.35 cup of coffee to $402.55 worth of food and alcohol at an upscale Oklahoma City restaurant.
Add it all up, and lobbyists have spent more than $414,000 on meals, beverages and gifts for lawmakers since January 2025. That number is likely to increase as the legislative session marches toward sine die and the latest lobbyist spending reports come due in early May.
Many lawmakers, who work part-time and are term-limited, said the meals help them learn about complex issues and fine-tune legislation. But the rate of spending has drawn the ire of a slew of Republican primary challengers, who are hitting the campaign trail with a message that their opponents are more beholden to lobbyists than their constituents.
At least 11 legislative candidates have vowed not to accept any lobbyist meals, gifts or campaign contributions, according to an Oklahoma Watch review of campaign websites and social media pages. Some of them are challenging influential lawmakers in leadership positions, including Senate Budget Chairman Chuck Hall and Senate Education Committee Vice Chair Ally Seifried, who could be appointed to lead the committee if the chairman, Adam Pugh, is elected state superintendent.
“They’re either going to have to receive the message and change or they’re going to lose their jobs,” said Payton Pepin, a Republican candidate for Senate District 2 who is looking to unseat Seifried. “Or they may be able to keep doing business as usual. You never know. But I hope they get knocked on their ass.”
The success of candidates like Pepin, a construction manager from Claremore, would mark a notable shift in the Legislature. The primary election is set for June 16, with a runoff scheduled for Aug. 25 if no candidate gets a majority of votes. Lawmakers are expected to adjourn in early May, giving incumbents time to return to their districts and campaign.
Just three of 146 sitting lawmakers, Reps. Tom Gann, Rick West and Molly Jenkins, have accepted no gifts or meals from lobbyists since 2025. Another three, Reps. David Smith, Gabe Woolley and Jim Shaw, took less than $200, according to Oklahoma Ethics Commission records. The average amount of food, beverages and gifts accepted per legislator over the 15-month period was $2,819.
State ethics rules don’t limit the amount of food and gifts lawmakers may accept, though lobbyists are capped at spending $750 per calendar year on individual state officers. There’s also no requirement that lobbyists, some of whom represent several clients, disclose the bill or issue they were lobbying on.
Kenny Smith, a Republican candidate for Senate District 4 looking to unseat Tom Woods, said he noticed the trend of candidates rejecting lobbyist money and decided to sign on before the April filing period.
“I’ve been a contractor all my life, so I realized if you take money from someone, you’re pretty much obligated to them,” Smith said.
Smith pointed to Senate Bill 998, a bill enacted in 2025 that authorizes utility companies to preemptively charge ratepayers for the construction costs of new natural gas facilities, as an example of policy he believes was overly influenced by special interests.
The bill narrowly advanced from the House and Senate despite unanimous opposition from the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, which warned it would burden ratepayers with no benefit. House Budget Chairman Trey Caldwell and Sen. Grant Green, co-sponsors of SB 998, said the measure was necessary to allow utilities to immediately cover costs instead of borrowing money that ratepayers would have to pay back with interest years down the line.
Caldwell and Green, who sponsored the legislation, received a combined $5,841 in meals and gifts from lobbyists during the 2025 legislative session. Reported transactions include $100-plus meals from lobbyists representing energy and public utility companies, including OG&E and The Sinclair Corporation.
“To bypass 100 years of OCC protocol, and pretty much charge the consumers for their construction bill, to me that is surely losing sight of who you are serving,” Smith said. “To put that additional burden on your constituents, that shows that you’re not really listening to your people. You’re really serving the large corporations.”
Multiple anti-establishment campaigns proved successful during the 2024 election cycle. Rep. Jim Shaw, a political newcomer from House District 32, upset former House Budget Chairman Kevin Wallace in a hotly contested Republican primary centered on hyperlocal issues such as the use of biosolid fertilizers. Despite a significant fundraising disadvantage, Sen. Jonathan Wingard defeated former Sen. Greg McCortney, who was on track to become President Pro Tempore of the Senate.
The House District 32 race, in particular, was historically expensive for a state House race. Shaw loaned himself $275,000 of personal money, while Wallace received upwards of $750,000 in contributions, much of it from sitting lawmakers, lobbyists and corporate interests. The candidates spent a combined $1.31 million, averaging about $216 per Republican voter in the August runoff.
Spending from independent expenditure groups, which can spend unlimited amounts and don’t have to disclose their donors, also reached record levels in 2024. Several legislative candidates saw tens of thousands of dollars spent against them in the form of attack mailers and digital advertisements.
Roberta Lewis, a Republican candidate for House District 27 who signed onto the no-lobbyist-money pledge, said it would be difficult for her to keep up in such an expensive campaign. But she said such a disadvantage can be overcome with old-fashioned tactics like doorknocking.
“What I’m hearing from people is they don’t feel heard and represented, and they’re amazed someone cared enough to come knock on their door and ask them questions,” Lewis said. “I haven’t gotten any, well, how much money is in your bank account?”
If elected, Lewis said she’ll communicate with lobbyists, but believes accepting meals and gifts sends the wrong message to constituents.
“There are lobbyists that are needed for people and for industries that need someone to speak for them,” she said. “But some of the lobbyists and companies have gotten a little too big, and they’re no longer speaking for the people that are in those industries. If it takes you spending $300 on dinner for me to actually sit down and talk to you, then maybe you have more problems.”
Oklahoma Watch, at oklahomawatch.org, is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that covers public-policy issues facing the state.
