The Crucifixion of Randy Terrill
Last month I was traveling when the Oklahoma Supreme Court handed down the Leftwich and Terrill decisions and the next day former State Representative Randy Terrill turned himself in to authorities to begin his one year prison sentence. So I was shocked when I heard the news and deeply saddened that our courts have become controlled by public opinion or simply have become new means to settle old political scores.
Two things show how wrong and corrupt this decision is:
1. The justices reached outside the Statute Title for definitions
2. Oklahoma County D.A. David Prater was doing the same thing with Speaker Steele
3. And we have a prediction that will shock many
The law on this controversy is very simple. But remember that statutes are generally self contained, complete with precise definitions from within that exact title. For this example Title 21 are our Oklahoma Criminal laws, Title 26 is our election laws. Oklahoma District Attorney David Prater used Title 26 statutes to prosecute Randy Terrill and Senator Leftwich:
§26-16-107. Bribe for withdrawal of candidacy.
Any person who shall offer or give to another anything of value to induce or cause such other person to withdraw from a political contest as a candidate or nominee at any election shall be deemed guilty of a felony. Laws 1974, c. 153, § 16-107, operative Jan. 1, 1975
26 O.S.2001, § 16-108, which provides, “Any person who shall solicit or accept from another anything of value for withdrawing from any political contest as a candidate or nominee for any office at any election
shall be deemed guilty of a felony.”
The only two question that are unanswered in my mind after reading this state statute is the definition of a political candidate under state and what constitutes “withdrawing” from a political contest.
Our state election law is contained in 26 O.S.2001, § 5-10 and it gives a butt clear definition of what constitutes a candidacy in an election:
“Declarations of Candidacy Required”: A person may become a candidate for office and have his name appear on a ballot only after he files a Declaration of Candidacy as hereinafter provided.”
Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater depended on one opposing statute to call Leftwich a candidate:
"§21-187. Definitions. As used in this section through Section 187.2 of this title:
2. Candidate" means an individual who has filed or should have filed a statement of organization for a candidate committee for state office with the Ethics Commission as required by its Rules. A candidate committee shall include committees for candidates for partisan elective offices, for nonpartisan judicial offices and for judicial retention offices;”
However this is merely a definition used in the following statutes and it clearly states “as used in this section through Section 187.2 of this title” and that 2. In front of the word Candidate is not the Section 187.2, it is merely a numeration in the list of definitions. Sections 187.1 and 187.2 deal with campaign contributions from individuals, political action committees, corporations, lobbyists, and unions. No where did it deal with bribery, withdrawing from office, or submitting your name for public office.
Our state law also sets penalties for cutting deals at the legislature by House and Senate leadership under our criminal statutes in Title 21:
§21-182. Offers of office by candidate a misdemeanor.
Every person who, being a candidate at any election, offers or agrees to appoint or procure the appointment of any particular person to office, as an inducement or consideration to any person to vote for, to procure or aid in procuring the election of such candidate, is guilty of a misdemeanor. R.L.1910, § 2109.
We all know that legislative leaderships make deals all the time to garner support for the Speaker race or for the President Pro Tem race, even little cliques that form cut deals stating who gets what once they hold sway in one of those legislative caucus elections. That is how a coalition solidifies so that someone has enough power to lead. So while 21-182 applies outside the legislature it has zero meaning inside the legislature. As would the other statutes that the Supreme Court relied upon in their decision.
The other statute relied upon was actually not a law but a rule propagated by the Ethics Commission:
"Candidate" means a person who seeks nomination or election to state office. An individual is a candidate when the individual:
(1) has filed a declaration of candidacy for any state office with the Secretary of the State Election Board;
(2) has filed a declaration of candidacy with the Secretary of State and has drawn active opposition;
(3) is nominated as a "substitute candidate" pursuant to Section 1-105 of Title 26 of the Oklahoma Statutes; or
(4) solicits or accepts contributions, makes expenditures or gives consent to an individual, organization, party committee, or other committee to solicit or accept contributions or make expenditures to secure election to any state office at any time, whether or not the office for which the individual will seek nomination or election is known when the:
(A) solicitation is made;
(B) contribution is accepted; or
(C) expenditure is made.
The term "candidate" shall include a person whose candidacy is unopposed.
But once again the state falls short by depending upon this Ethics Commission rule because there are four elements required to be called a candidate:
1. Filing a declaration of candidacy with the Secretary of the State Election Board
2. Has filed a declaration of candidacy with the Secretary of State
3. Is (note that the words “has been” is not used) nominated as a substitute candidate
4. Solicits or accepts contributions, makes expenditures, asks for help from others
In short all four elements must be necessary to be considered a candidate for public office under Ethics Commission rules. Leftwich never filed with the State Election Board or with the Secretary of State and was not a substitute candidate so three out of four elements were not there.
And notice the complete and total absence of their rule that a person soliciting and spending money in pursuit of a public office also register a candidate committee. The Ethics Commission clearly defines a candidate for public office as having four elements, elements that were completely abscent in the Leftwich/Terrill prosecution.
One of our writers has a habit of questioning Ethics Commission information when a candidate committee is still open long after the election is over and I have to edit his comments out because after an election there are usually bills to pay and debts to settle. Usually a candidate will use the same committee until right before filing time for the next election and that is perfectly legal as they simply transfer the remaining funds to the new committee. Leftwich wasn’t spending money on any sort of new election to the Senate; she was spending on overhead of being a senator like all the other politicians get away with. No signs were bought, no campaign consultants were paid, no ads were bought. She wasn’t running for office. She was planning on retiring from office which is why Rep. Christian wanted her open seat.
During the trial Terrill’s attorneys made motions to set jury instructions for the jury, the list of crucial elements that must be in place to find someone guilty under the state statute. Usually jury instructions are already set but in the case of bribery under Title 26 and Blackmail there are NO jury instructions so Oklahoma County Prosecutor David Prater can manipulate the jury with the jury instructions which is why Prater chose Title 26 bribery charges and not Title 21 bribery charges.
Terrill wanted the actual definition of a candidate to be from Title 26, which is our actual election law. Here is what Title 26 says about who is a candidate for office:
§26-5-101. Declarations of candidacy required.
A person may become a candidate for office and have his name appear on a ballot only after he files a Declaration of Candidacy as hereinafter provided. Laws 1974, c. 153, § 5-101, operative Jan. 1, 1975.
§26-5-102. Candidates filing with Secretary of State Election Board.
Candidates for United States Senator, United States Representative, state officer, State Senator, State Representative, district judge, associate district judge and district attorney shall file Declarations of Candidacy with the Secretary of the State Election Board. Amended by Laws 1987, c. 33, § 6, emerg. eff. April 20, 1987.
Leftwich had done neither so therefore legally she was not a candidate.
Terrill also asked that the definitions for “withdraw” and “political contest” be provided to the jurors. Title 26 has provisions and law covering withdrawals:
§26-5-115. Withdrawals from primary.
Any candidate may withdraw as a candidate only upon the filing of a written notice of withdrawal as a candidate with the secretary of the election board which accepted such candidate’s declaration of candidacy. Such notice shall be signed by the candidate or a lawfully appointed personal representative or a lawfully appointed special administrator of any deceased candidate, whose signature shall be notarized by a notary public, and shall be filed on or before 5:00 p.m. on the second business day following the close of the filing period prescribed by law. Added by Laws 1974, c. 153, § 5-115, operative Jan. 1, 1975. Amended by Laws 2003, c. 88, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2003; Laws 2004, c. 307, § 4, emerg. eff. May 17, 2004; Laws 2011, c. 196, § 7, eff. Nov. 1, 2011.
§26-5-116.1. Withdrawal from General Election.
A candidate in a General Election may withdraw his candidacy upon filing a written notice of withdrawal as a candidate with the secretary of the election board which accepted said candidate's declaration of candidacy. Said notice shall be signed by the candidate, whose signature shall be notarized by a notary public, and shall be filed on or before 5:00 p.m. on the Friday following the date of the Runoff Primary Election. Added by Laws 1983, c. 171, § 21, emerg. eff. June 6, 1983. Amended by Laws 1997, c. 176, § 7, eff. Nov. 1, 1997
So Title 26 is quite specific on the process of withdrawal and again as Leftwich was not a candidate as defined under Title 26 it was impossible for her to file a written notice of withdrawal with the election board or the secretary of state. You can’t withdraw from a process that you haven’t started!
During the trial Terrill also requested that the Jury instructions define the word “political contest” but Judge Cindy Truong denied this request. Sure enough the jury sent out a written question asking for the proper definition and Terrill’s attorney asked that they be told to use the ordinary definition of both withdrawal and political contest. This was denied and the jury was instructed that they had all the law and definitions needed to make their decision.
Jury instructions are set by a legal committee here in Oklahoma and approved by the court after rigorous debate. Here is an example of a bribery jury instruction set.
Compare the brevity of the actual statute for that sort of bribery with the lengthy set of jury instructions:
“The term "bribe" signifies any money, goods, right in action, property, thing of value or advantage, present or prospective, or any promise or undertaking, asked, given or accepted, with a corrupt intent to influence unlawfully the person to whom it is given, in his action, vote or opinion, in any public or official capacity.”
And the actual jury instructions for this type of bribery:
BRIBERY OF FIDUCIARY - ELEMENTS
No person may be convicted of bribery unless the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. These elements are:
First, offering/giving/(promising to give);
Second, money/goods/(right in action)/property/(valuable thing);
Third, to a/n agent/employee/trustee/guardian/lawyer/(officer of a corporation)/partner/(Specify Other Fiduciary Listed in 21 O.S. 1991, § 380);
Fourth, known by defendant(s) to be a/n agent/employee/trustee/guardian/ lawyer/(officer of a corporation)/partner/(Specify Other Fiduciary Listed in 21 O.S. 1991, § 380);
Fifth, with intent to influence his/her conduct in relation to the affairs of his/her employer/beneficiary/client/corporation/partnership/ (the person for whom he/she is acting);
Sixth, which if accepted by the agent/employee/ trustee/guardian/lawyer/ (officer of a corporation)/partner/(Specify Other Fiduciary Listed in 21 O.S. 1991, § 380) would constitute the crime of accepting a bribe, the elements of which are as follows:
1. a/n agent/employee/trustee/guardian/lawyer/(officer of a corporation)/partner/(Specify Other Fiduciary Listed in 21 O.S. 1991, § 380);
2. with a corrupt intent;
3. without the consent of the employer/beneficiary/client/corporation/ partnership/(the person for whom he/she is acting);
5. solicits/accepts/(agrees to accept) a bribe;
6. to influence the conduct of the agent/employee/trustee/ guardian/lawyer/(officer of a corporation)/partner/(Specify Other Fiduciary Listed in 21 O.S. 1991, § 380);
7. in relation to the affairs of the employer/beneficiary/client/ corporation/partnership/(the person for whom he/she is acting
One huge hole in the justices reasoning is shown in these jury instructions for another kind of bribery, the requirement that the item offered be an actual physical thing that the person offering the bribe can deliver personally. Money, property, valuable thing…. Not a job offer, not an advantage on a job application, not something that takes the majority of the House, the majority of the Senate, House leadership, Senate leadership, and the governor’s willingness to sign the legislation to give one person a job or an advantage on landing a job. Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have also ruled blackmailing a public official for a task that is impossible for them to do is not illegal because it is not probable that the task can be accomplished.
In fact the federal blackmail statutes do not allow blackmail charges to be filed unless money was directly involved in the transaction. Intangible items or processes are not considered things of value.
Federal bribery statutes also require that both parties believe the official has the ability to consummate the act, and Randy Terrill was powerless to deliver a state job to anyone without the consent of both the House and Senate and the Governor signing the legislation. The other very interesting thing is that federal bribery statutes make the distinction that bribery is between an official and someone outside the government. There is also the need to have multiple gifts or multiple official acts, a single act official act on its own is considered a very weak federal bribery case.
Interestingly enough the federal bribery law also sets out the difference between a campaign contribution and gratuity or bribery. A campaign contribution is legal because the money or thing of actual value is given to the campaign of the politician instead of the politician personally. Of course the politician then turns around and spends the money on gas, toll roads, meals, entertainment, travel, and other personal expenses so in reality a campaign committee merely allows the laundering of bribes to elected officials. Can anyone say Senator Rick Brinkley, boys and girls?
So the decision was quite flawed in many ways and politically motivated. Now we should address the second fact, that David Prater prosecuted another elected official for doing what Prater himself was doing with House Speaker Kris Steel.
Prater and Steel had joined up in a political alliance to assist each other in their agendas. Prater had legislative items he wanted advanced so he bribed Steel by offering assistance in prosecuting Steel’s political enemies. Steel accepted the prosecution of political enemies in exchange for pushing Prater’s legislative agenda. Steel got more than the prosecution of his political enemies, he also received David Prater’s assistance on landing a cushy, six figure job with the TEAM non profit after he was term limited out of the House. The Sooner Tea Party is always on the lookout for the term limited politicians golden parachutes or exit plans. These boys don’t go back to making an honest living.
Prater and Steel were the public and volunteer heads of the Justice Reinvestment Initiative, the JRI program. Steel went before the board of directors of TEAM and allegedly promised to deliver about 4 million dollars in grant money, sourced through the Justice department of the federal government, and funneled through the Oklahoma Attorney Generals Office. Steel received the job offer from TEAM and with Prater’s assistance he set about making the grant happen.
We all remember the public melt down of both Prater and Steel when Governor Fallin pulled the plug on JRI, both resigned from the committee and left in tears according to the media reports. Grown men crying in public…… something was very, very, personal with that.
Later, a consortium of media companies including the Associated Press, sued for the emails from the Governor’s office on the JRI decision and up popped the Sooner Tea Party’s name. The Governor wanted to support the JRI program, giving Prater the ability to pay off Speaker Steel for the assistance with Prater’s legislative agenda. But Fallin’s staff were forwarding her Sooner Tea Party newsletters like this one and warning her that the Sooner Tea Party would label her soft on crime if she supported the JRI program.
In the end it was Prater’s overreach that did the program in, his charging the Parole Board directors with a false crime, that caused Fallin to pull the plug on the JRI program. Fallin did a masterful job on that, yanked the funding, tanking the bribery scheme between Steel and Prater, and hiring Prater’s #3 assistant prosecutor at the same time to prevent Prater from retaliating against Fallin. Jenifer Chance, the purloined #3 assistant prosecutor, most likely had plenty of dirt on Prater, enough to possibly send Prater to prison or turn public opinion against him. Can you think of another reason why a Governor would hire a top criminal prosecutor and put them on the mundane staff work of a government lawyer, something that Jenifer Chance had zero experience in doing?
All the elements where there between Prater and Speaker Steel, bribery, an offer and an acceptance, something of actual value which was the 4 million dollar grant money, performance as Prater went after Randy Terrill, the Pardon and Parole Board members which were denying paroles to criminals which meant that TEAM had a shortage of new clients to spend that grant moneyon, complete quid pro quo was plain for anyone to see once they connected all the dots.
One bedrock legal principle is called clean hands. You yourself should not be guilty of the offense you are charging another with if you have the power of the state at your whim and control. Prater was dirty and guilty of the same offense that he charged Terrill with and should at the least have excused his entire agency and turned it over to a neutral prosecutor if he thought something was amiss. But another prosecutor would not have charged a sitting legislator for making deals and performing legislative duties that were perfectly legal.
And our prediction, Terrill will not serve out the entire year in prison. He is a political prisoner, House and Senate leadership and the Supreme Court were pinned between the law and a vengeful and vicious prosecutor that has tons of dirt on everyone so the trial decision was upheld to placate Prater but everyone knows that Randy Terrill is a political prisoner, not a felon deserving prison time. A deal was most likely struck, we see some of the elements already, no other explanation exists for the actions late in the legislative session. Once the proper time has arrived and perhaps another scapegoat issue is hot in the media, Randy Terrill will walk out of that prison cell a free man. His reputation ruined, his pension lost for a decade of work, his livelihood as a prospective lawyer eliminated, his political career ruined, his family crushed along with his personal finances but he will be set free long before the year’s sentence is up. And rightly so, it is Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater that deserves to be sitting in prison surrounded by animals he sent there.
Mike McCarville Joins Forces with Dissident RINO Party Chairman
Is a Libel and Slander Lawsuit Imminent?
Longtime RINO shill and RINO political consultant Neva Hill crony Mike McCarville joined dissident Oklahoma County GOP Chairman Dean Ward in slandering a top Republican staffer at the GOP and further slandered the Oklahoma State GOP Chairman Randy Brogdon in an email/press release. Here is the email:
“The executive committee of the Oklahoma County GOP (OKCGOP) passed a resolution this week opposing State Chairman Randy Brogdon’s appointment of a convicted domestic abuser to a paid position with the Oklahoma GOP.
Despite mass outcry from county chairs and Republican elected officials, Chairman Brogdon has refused to let go of T.C. Ryan. Instead, Brogdon has reacted to dissenting opinions by denying voter registration data access to county parties and excluding elected and appointed officials of Republican Party Districts 4 and 5 from crucial budget meetings.
“The hiring of Ryan has shown complete disregard for the opinions of women, and the Oklahoma County GOP is taking the lead by passing this resolution to begin the process of wiping away this blemish,” said Daren Ward, Chair of the Oklahoma County GOP. “Brogdon’s heavy handed approach to dissent is troubling considering he has been elected to be the chairman for all members of the state party, not just the chairman of those he has deemed to fall under his idea of Republicanism. I would expect this sort of behavior from the current executive administration in Washington, D.C., not from a Republican state chair. I ask that he reverse his actions and appreciate the diversity of people and views within our party.”
The resolution passed by the OKCGOP will be forwarded to the rest of Oklahoma’s county parties for consideration.
Oklahoma County Republican Party”
And the problem? Ryan was not convicted and the case has been expunged and wiped completely off the public record. After the expungement, legally , it is if Ryan was never arrested on the misdemeanor and never pled guilty to anything and never had the case deferred from prosecution.
Ryan first became a target almost immediately after Randy Brogdon was elected by grass roots activists, defeating a RINO candidate for control of the state GOP. In May both the Tulsa World and the Oklahoman ran stories about the controversy, no doubt driven by RINO shill Mike McCarville doing the bidding of RINO political consultant/ax man Neva Hill. The RINOs were incensed that Brogdon had won the post and were hell bent on removing Brogdon by any means necessary.
Brogdon initially responded to the manufactured controversy by demoting Ryan to the position of political director. The now 31 year old Ryan was alleged to have pleaded guilty to a domestic abuse charge in 2012 but the court records were removed after the charge was expunged by court order.
A search of the OSCN.net court dockets revealed that there are zero records for Thomas Clint Ryan in any county in Oklahoma. However an alleged copy and paste court docket was found on the McCarville Report website showing a mug shot of Ryan and an alleged court docket. There is a major problem though with the alleged court docket. Court records and arrest records are expunged under two Oklahoma statutes and the expungements are called Section 991 and Section 18/19 expungements.
A Section 991(c) expungment allows a person who received a deferred sentence to expunge their plea, and have the disposition of their case updated to show the case has been dismissed. The disposition will say, "pled not guilty, case dismissed". However, a 991(c) expungement will not expunge (remove) the arrest record.
A Section 18/19 expungement wipes the entire arrest record clean and will be objected to by the OSBI if there are any concerns.
The alleged court docket being shilled by Mike McCarville shows this : Disposed: DEFERRED, 09/07/2012. Guilty Plea. , meaning that a Section 18 expungement wiped TC Ryan’s record clean otherwise the docket would have read “Pled not guilty, case dismissed”.
A section 18/19 expungement allows a person to deny that they were ever arrested on that charge and completely wipes the record clean, unless you have criminal accomplishes that can open up sealed expunged court files and copy the information. Those expunged and sealed court files can be opened up if the person is arrested again on serious charges but only in criminal court.
Now Section 18/19 expungements are not easy to get. The arresting agency is notified as is the District Attorney that prosecuted the case and the case has to be filed in District Court. The OSBI can also object and the arresting agency and D.A. can object and try to block the expungement..
Mr. McCarville and Mr . Dean Ward might just find that their copy and paste “court docket” is going to be inadmissible in court for a civil libel/defamation trial because the case has been expunged. Dean Ward shares office space at the State GOP Party headquarters and was a daily visitor up and down the hallways so he had ample opportunity to ask questions of TC Ryan were he truly interested the truth.
The word is that a very highly thought of Tulsa attorney will be drafting a letter to Dean Ward and demanding a retraction.
So the controversy is more about infighting between true Republicans and the old guard RINO Republicans. Brogdon remains highly regarded by the grassroots activists that put him in power and this attempted coup will slowly die out.
Americans for Limited Government
Konawa Tea Party
(4th) Tuesday June 23, 2015 7:00 - 9:00 PM
Kennedy Library - The Dougan Room
Konawa School, 701 W. South St.
Speakers this month are Rep. Tom Newell and Mark Costello, Oklahoma Labor Commissioner
Are People Really That Stupid And Don’t Know They Haven’t Paid Their Property Taxes Or Is It They Think It’s Okay Not Being Held Accountable?
By Ms PM
No one likes being taxed each year for property they have paid the bank loan off on. This form of over taxation does nothing but reinforce the fact that you never own your property. If your government wants your real estate this type of theft is set up by laws that are passed making it legal. Here is a way the tax man has been doing this and it was completely legal.
The landowner Vernon Crownover filed suit saying he “was denied his right to redeem the property.” Yes, Crownover skipped over the fact that his property would not have been sold had he paid his taxes like the rest of his peers do each year. He not only didn’t pay his taxes, he wasn’t living at the property and never updated his current address with the treasurer’s office. When the “official certified letter” was returned undeliverable the property was sold.
The Oklahoma Supreme court said that Crownover has no responsibility to update his address and even though the treasurer’s office followed the law, the property owner did not receive “constitutionally sufficient notice.” Who is the one that started this snowball rolling downhill? Did the treasurer’s office follow the law? Maybe partly but simple human decency states that before someone’s property can be taken and sold they should make an effort to post notices on the property instead of publishing in a “newspaper of record” that one percent of the population might read and even fewer might actually read the classified ad advertising the tax sale.
The Oklahoma Justices didn’t exactly say what the procedure should be for notification and “suggested reasonable measures such as posting notice on the property door, or even sending notice by regular mail, which could at least have resulted in its delivery and presence on the property.”
We ask, isn’t a certified letter a bit more reasonable than regular mail? Isn’t it just as reasonable to hold Crownover accountable? Perryman, the state representative involved in the story requested an “interim legislative study” later this year to determine whether a change in state statute can be made so that county treasurers across the state will have some assurances that their tax sales and tax deeds are not voided and that property isn’t once again illegally taken.
So…more money will probably be spent to do another study on a law, which according to the high court falls short. All the Crownovers of Oklahoma have to do is pay their taxes on time like everyone else. Instead his unaccountability will cost every taxpayer more to pick up the tab for the study. But the Supreme Court of Oklahoma did come down on the side of the people by demanding due process and notification before counties could seize land and terminate property rights.
Oklahoma Ethics Commission Investigating Senator Brinkley
By the Watchman
The next item of interest we found was this Rick Brinkley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Although out of date considering all the recent events, there is information here that could indicate why the green light was given to pressure him into resigning his leadership posts. It’s not often you see a caucasian who has graduated from a historically black university. Although we hate to admit it, discrimination in the RINO Senate leadership has reared its ugly head in the past. Could this be the reason he was allowed to be charged?
The next item of interest we found was this Former employer says Oklahoma State Sen. Rick Brinkley stole more than $1 million | KFOR.com. This is an indictment on his character. It says he has none. His reaction to this was to resign his leadership position in the Senate. A man with any character would have resigned from the Senate. He lost his job with the Better Business Bureau justifiably over this, so he must be in desperate need of his Senate Salary to pay for his attorney.
The next article of interest we found was this OSBI investigating Oklahoma state senator over BBB funds | News OK . This alone should at the very least draw a censor or a suspension from the president pro-tem of the Senate until the investigation is over. Yet there is nothing from them. In addition to that, we have heard nothing from the Attorney General of any investigation or possible pending investigation. All we have there is the civil case pending against the Senator by the Better Business Bureau. Why are they keeping such a low profile at the AG’s office?
We took a look at his voting record here Rick Brinkley's Voting Records - The Voter's Self Defense System - Vote Smart. Here it became evident that the Senator is totally unaware of what is contained within the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma. He voted against being able to practice your Constitutional right of having a State Constitutional Convention as called for every 20 years by our State Constitution. It’s been 45 years since the politicians of this state have even followed our own Constitution, why should he care now?
2014 Research Institute for Economic Development - Positions (Cumulative Score)
2014 Research Institute for Economic Development - Positions 95%
2013-2014 Oklahoma National Federation of Independent Business - Positions 100%
2012 Research Institute for Economic Development - Lifetime Score 97%
2012 Research Institute for Economic Development - Positions on Pro-Business Policy
2014 Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee - Positions 70%
2013 Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee - Positions 70%
2013 Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee - Positions (Lifetime) 71%
2013 Sooner Tea Party - Positions
We could go on and on, but the report gets to be repetitious. We highly recommend that you open the links and look through the entire report for yourself.
We next went to www.ok.gov/ethicscommission to see what they had on his campaign finances. The Ethics Commission is only going back three years in their investigation; we found that to cover his last campaign we had to go all the way back to 2009. We’ll begin with his individual donations. Here are a few examples of what we found.
Oct. 09, 2009 Rick Brinkley $1,000.00 Loan
Oct. 28, 2009 Rick Brinkley $9,000.00 Loan
Mar. 10,2010 Rick Brinkley $7,000.00 Loan
Mar. 15,2010 Rick Brinkley $3,000.00 Loan
Mar. 31,2010 Rick Brinkley $30,000.00 Loan
Jul. 12, 2010 Rick Brinkley $15,000.00 Loan
Folks that’s $65,000.00 in loans he made to his campaigns alone and nowhere could we find where he repaid those loans. Additionally we were unable to find a payment to his campaign in the amount of $50,000.00 as indicated by the ethics commission.
We next took a look at the Political Action Committees, Unions and Corporations that contributed to his campaign. The contribution list reads like a who’s who of the Oklahoma State Chamber of Commerce biggest supporters, the biggest unions in the state and the biggest political action committees in the state. At no time during this man’s career can we say he was working for the people of Oklahoma or those of District 34.
Senator Brinkley you have taken enough from the pockets of the citizens of Oklahoma. It’s now time for you to finish the job and resign from the Senate.