OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. — February 18, 2026 (The Oklahoma Post)
When Oklahomans hear about State Question 836’s campaign to open the state’s primary elections, they hear the story of a grassroots movement led by local attorney Margaret Kobos and her nonprofit, Oklahoma United. But the full story reveals a well-funded national infrastructure dedicated to remaking election systems across conservative states, with Oklahoma as a prime target.
At the operational center of the campaign sits Patrick McFerron, a supposed Republican consultant whose dual role as both the initiative’s lead strategist and a registered lobbyist for Koch Industries, Tesla, Blackrock, and the District Attorney Association and “interests”, certainly raises questions that go beyond typical political consulting. Someone is paying for McFerron’s services, for the massive signature gathering operation that collected over 200,000 signatures in 90 days during winter, and for the legal team that successfully defended the initiative through multiple court challenges.
The answer to who’s funding this effort reveals a sophisticated playbook that’s been deployed across the country, with significant implications for Oklahoma’s political future.
The National Players
While Oklahoma United presents itself as a homegrown organization, the open primary movement is backed by Unite America, a Denver based philanthropic venture fund that has invested over $70 million across dozens of states to advance open primaries and ranked choice voting. Founded in 2014 as the Centrist Project by Dartmouth professor Charles Wheelan, Unite America transformed from supporting independent candidates to funding systemic electoral reforms.
The organization’s major donor is Kathryn Murdoch, board member and philanthropist married to James Murdoch (son of conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch), who contributed $3.8 million of Unite America’s $5.1 million in revenue in 2019 alone. Her Quadrivium Foundation, co-founded with her husband, has funneled millions into progressive causes and Democratic campaigns.
Unite America was the largest funder of Alaska’s successful top four primary initiative and has backed similar efforts in Nevada, Arizona, and other states. The organization’s strategy is explicit: invest in ballot measures and legislation to fundamentally restructure how elections work, prioritizing states where closed Republican primaries currently determine most outcomes.
Unite America studies are cited in SQ 836 promotional materials. The campaign’s messaging mirrors Unite America’s national playbook point by point. The legal strategy, organizational structure, and tactical execution all reflect the expertise of an organization that has run dozens of these campaigns nationwide.
The Funding Mystery
Here’s where it gets interesting: despite running a multimillion dollar signature gathering operation, hiring top tier legal representation from firms like Crowe Dunlevy and Gable Gotwals, and retaining Pat McFerron’s CMA Strategies as lead consultant, the exact sources of funding for Oklahoma’s Vote Yes 836 campaign remain opaque.
The campaign is organized as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, which must disclose donations under Oklahoma and federal law. However, comprehensive donor lists have not been made readily available to the public. What has been confirmed through Oklahoma Ethics Commission records and investigative reporting reveals a pattern:
- Sue Ann Arnall, the most prominent publicly identified supporter, contributed to Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, Senator Cory Booker’s 2020 presidential bid, and Democrat Drew Edmondson’s 2018 gubernatorial campaign in Oklahoma.
- Other hosts of SQ 836 fundraising events have similar histories of supporting Democratic candidates and progressive causes.
- Margaret Kobos herself has donated to Democratic gubernatorial candidates Joy Hofmeister (2022) and Drew Edmondson (2018), as well as to the Democratic Party of Oklahoma and Democrats of the Oklahoma State Senate PAC.
- Oklahoma City Mayor David Holt, a Republican supporter of SQ 836, authored a column during the 2024 presidential race indicating he would not support Donald Trump, which opponents interpreted as effective support for Kamala Harris.
Conservative critics led by the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs have called attention to these patterns. OCPA President Jonathan Small claims the initiative is “led by a group from New York City” using “out-of-state signature gatherers” as part of a “multimillion dollar campaign” designed to “impose California’s chaotic jungle primary election system” on Oklahoma.
Small’s claim about New York City leadership appears to reference Unite America’s national network rather than the organization’s actual Denver headquarters. What’s accurate is that the operation deployed professional signature gatherers and sophisticated campaign infrastructure that requires substantial funding.
Under Oklahoma’s Senate Bill 1027, passed in 2025, entities funding initiative campaigns must file weekly reports detailing expenditures and attesting that funds don’t come from out of state. These disclosures should eventually reveal the complete funding picture, but as of early 2026, the full donor base remains unclear to most Oklahomans.
Pat McFerron’s Role: Strategy or Advocacy?
This brings us to Pat McFerron and the central question: why is a registered Koch Industries lobbyist serving as the lead strategist for an electoral reform initiative?
McFerron, a founding partner of CMA Strategies and president of Cole Hargrave Snodgrass & Associates, has built a career as a Republican political consultant, working on presidential campaigns including Donald Trump’s. His firm has been instrumental in Republican victories across Oklahoma, including the party’s takeover of the state legislature in 2008.
But McFerron’s professional portfolio creates unusual optics. He simultaneously:
- Serves as lead strategist for Vote Yes 836, regularly speaking at universities, civic groups, and media events as the public face of the campaign.
- Lobbies for Koch Companies Public Sector, LLC and its affiliates, representing one of America’s largest corporations with massive operations in Oklahoma.
- Lobbies for the Oklahoma District Attorneys Association, the professional organization representing the state’s 27 elected prosecutors.
- McFerron has publicly framed SQ 836 in populist terms, arguing that “political parties are not government entities” but “private organizations” that unfairly “control the process.” He claims the current system rewards division and leaves independent voters disenfranchised.
What McFerron has not addressed is how his lobbying work relates to his role in the SQ 836 campaign, or whether there’s any connection between his clients’ interests and the push to remake Oklahoma’s electoral system.
Professional political consultants don’t work for free. Someone hired CMA Strategies to run this campaign. Someone is paying McFerron’s fees. The question of who, and why, matters enormously given McFerron’s other professional relationships.
The Koch Question
Koch Industries’ position on SQ 836 is conspicuously silent.
The company has not taken a public stance on the measure. There is no evidence in campaign finance filings that Koch or its affiliates have contributed to Vote Yes 836. When asked for comment, Koch Industries has declined to state a position.
This silence is notable precisely because Koch Industries’ political network has historically supported open primary initiatives in other states. Through Americans for Prosperity and other affiliated organizations, Koch has backed electoral reforms in Arizona, Nevada, and elsewhere as part of a broader strategy to reduce partisan polarization and increase electoral competition.
The fact that Koch’s registered lobbyist in Oklahoma is running the SQ 836 campaign, yet Koch won’t say whether it supports the measure, creates an information vacuum that critics are eager to fill with speculation.
Koch operates using a ‘four square risk method’ that prioritizes company survival over human safety considerations. So, why do they need Pat McFerron?
The company’s significant presence in Oklahoma includes massive chemical manufacturing operations at facilities like the Koch Fertilizer plant in Enid, one of the largest ammonia producers in the United States. While Koch maintains a Risk Management Plan on file with the EPA as required under the Clean Air Act, key portions of that plan including the Off-Site Consequence Analysis are restricted from public view and require making an appointment at an EPA Reading Room to access. This limits the information readily available to local emergency responders and the general public about potential chemical release scenarios. The November 2025 ammonia leak in Weatherford, which injured 45 people and forced evacuation of up to 1,000 residents, involved an Airgas truck carrying 25,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia. Koch Fertilizer is one of the nation’s largest ammonia producers, and the company employs thousands in Oklahoma while maintaining substantial influence over state regulatory decisions, giving it considerable interests in how Oklahoma’s government functions and who gets elected.
Koch Fertilizer Enid RMP (EPA records):
This means key emergency impact information is NOT readily available to the public
Has a Risk Management Plan on file
Lists 2 reportable incidents (Dec 2013, March 2014).
CRITICAL: The Off-Site Consequence Analysis is RESTRICTED – not available online
To access OCA details, you must “make an appointment at an EPA Reading Room”. It is things like this.
Did Koch Industries quietly support the initiative’s development? Did company leaders give McFerron tacit approval to take on the role? Or is McFerron’s involvement purely coincidental, driven by his personal views on electoral reform rather than any client relationship?
Without transparency from either McFerron or Koch Industries, Oklahomans are left to wonder about the relationship between corporate lobbying and electoral reform advocacy.
The Drummond Connection
The political dynamics become more layered when considering Attorney General Gentner Drummond’s position. As a candidate for governor in 2026, Drummond has publicly condemned SQ 836, calling it a “California style jungle primary” he cannot support.
But Drummond’s role in Oklahoma’s power structure creates an institutional overlap with McFerron. As Attorney General, Drummond holds a statutory seat on the Oklahoma District Attorneys Council, the state body that oversees prosecutors. McFerron lobbies for the Oklahoma District Attorneys Association, which works closely with that council.
This means:
- Drummond, as Attorney General, sits on the council that deals with the prosecutors McFerron represents as a lobbyist.
- McFerron leads the campaign for an electoral reform that Drummond publicly opposes.
- McFerron also lobbies for Koch Industries, a company with deep Oklahoma ties and documented connections to Oklahoma’s political establishment through campaign contributions.
The Drummond family has significant influence in Oklahoma through ranching, banking, and political activities. While specific campaign contributions from Drummond family members to various judicial candidates have been reported, the full extent of these relationships and their implications for the current political landscape remain subjects of ongoing scrutiny.
The Reese Appointment Irony
The political entanglements grow more intricate when considering Judge Jason Reese’s role in both stories. In a recorded phone call, McFerron acknowledged his involvement in Reese’s appointment to the Payne County bench by Governor Kevin Stitt in December 2024. When McFerron’s State Question 836 faced legal challenges from the Oklahoma Republican Party attempting to block signature gathering, the initiative successfully defended itself through the court system, ultimately winning a 6-3 Oklahoma Supreme Court decision in September 2025. Yet that same month, Judge Reese dismissed a citizen grand jury petition filed by Oklahomans for Children’s Rights and supported by State Representative Justin Humphrey, ruling it “null and void.”
The petition sought to investigate allegations of judicial misconduct and civil rights violations. Among those named in the grand jury petition was former House Speaker Charles McCall. In a February 18, 2026 Facebook post, Representative Humphrey noted he “had to be in court,” referencing recent proceedings. McCall, however, did not appear in court.
The contrast is stark: McFerron’s electoral reform initiative, challenged by Republican Party officials, prevailed in court. Meanwhile, a citizen petition challenging those same officials and the judicial system was dismissed by a judge whose appointment McFerron helped facilitate.
When the architects of political appointments also lead ballot initiatives that successfully navigate the very courts where their appointed allies sit, questions of institutional independence become unavoidable.
Republican Opposition and the Corporate Capture Argument
Nearly every elected Republican in Oklahoma opposes SQ 836. In January 2025, 74 House Republicans (over 90% of the caucus) and 38 Senate Republicans (95% of their caucus) signed a letter urging voters to reject the measure. Both leading Republican gubernatorial candidates, Drummond and former House Speaker Charles McCall, have forcefully opposed it.
McCall called SQ 836 “a California style power grab, plain and simple” that’s “designed to flood our elections with big money and shut out conservative voices.”
Conservative critics have raised a pointed concern: that SQ 836 doesn’t reduce special interest influence in politics but merely shifts power from party organizations to wealthy donors and corporate interests who can afford to fund candidates in crowded, expensive primary fields.
Steve Fair, vice chairman of the Fourth District of the Oklahoma Republican Party, warned the measure would “draw special interest money like flies to sugar” and enable “mass marketing of empty suit lightweights” who would put “power in the hands of big donors.”
This critique gains force when examining how top two primaries have functioned in California. Rather than producing moderate, independent minded candidates, California’s system has coincided with even greater Democratic dominance and the near elimination of Republican competitiveness in statewide races. Whether the primary system caused this or merely coincided with broader demographic trends remains debated, but the outcome is clear: Republicans have effectively been shut out of governing despite representing millions of Californians.
In Washington state, the top two system has produced less dramatic but still notable effects, with general elections sometimes offering voters two candidates from the same party.
Oklahoma conservatives fear a similar dynamic would develop here, where the Republican vote could be split among multiple candidates in the open primary, allowing two Democrats to advance to the general election despite Republicans winning more total votes, as almost happened in Oklahoma’s 2018 gubernatorial race under the current system’s vote totals.
The Case for Reform: Broken System or Working as Designed?
Supporters counter that Oklahoma’s current system is fundamentally broken and produces exactly the kind of unrepresentative government that allows corruption and dysfunction to thrive unchecked.
The statistics they cite are stark:
- Oklahoma ranks dead last in the nation in voter turnout.
- In 2024, only six of 77 county sheriff positions were contested by both major parties in the general election.
- Oklahoma has a 68% uncontested rate, the highest in the country.
- Ninety seven percent of Oklahoma’s elections are effectively decided before November, when all voters can participate.
- Nearly 500,000 independent voters (one in five registered voters) cannot participate in Republican primaries where most competitive races are decided.
AJ Griffin, a former Republican state senator supporting SQ 836, put it bluntly: “The general elections across the state of Oklahoma are almost inconsequential in most elections.”
Margaret Kobos frames the issue in terms of basic fairness: when only 51% of Oklahomans are registered Republicans, yet Republicans hold virtually every statewide and legislative office, with many running unopposed, something is structurally wrong with the system.
National Strategy, Local Implications
What’s undeniable is that Oklahoma has become a battleground in a larger national struggle over how elections should work. Unite America and other reform organizations see closed primary systems in Republican dominated states as the key barrier to more competitive, accountable government.
Their theory of change is straightforward: if you can open primaries in red states, you force Republican candidates to appeal to a broader electorate including independents and moderate Democrats. This theoretically produces more centrist, pragmatic candidates less beholden to partisan extremes.
Critics see it differently: this is an attempt by progressive funders and Democratic aligned donors to undo Republican electoral dominance by changing the rules after losing at the ballot box.
Both narratives contain elements of truth. The reform movement is backed by donors with progressive track records. But Oklahoma’s closed primary system genuinely does produce uncompetitive elections and low participation.
Whether the solution is to open the system or whether doing so simply creates new problems while leaving fundamental issues of money, influence, and accountability unaddressed remains the central question voters will decide.
What Oklahomans Don’t Know
As this campaign moves toward a likely November 2026 ballot appearance, significant questions remain unanswered:
Who is actually funding the Vote Yes 836 campaign? Beyond the handful of publicly identified donors, where is the money coming from to pay for signature gathering, consultants like McFerron, legal representation, and the anticipated advertising campaign?
What is Koch Industries’ actual position, and is there any connection between McFerron’s lobbying work for Koch and his role leading the SQ 836 campaign?
Has Unite America provided funding, strategic support, or other resources to Oklahoma United or Vote Yes 836, even if indirectly?
What did McFerron’s contract with the campaign entail, what is CMA Strategies being paid, and who made the decision to hire him?
Are there other major funders who haven’t been publicly disclosed?
Under Oklahoma’s new transparency requirements in SB 1027, some of these answers should eventually emerge. But voters may not have complete information when they’re asked to make a decision that could fundamentally reshape how Oklahoma elections work for generations.
The Bottom Line
State Question 836 represents more than a technical reform of Oklahoma’s primary system. It’s part of a national movement with substantial financial backing designed to restructure political power in conservative states.
That doesn’t necessarily make it wrong. Legitimate arguments exist on both sides about how to create fair, competitive, accountable elections. But Oklahomans deserve to know who’s driving this effort, who’s funding it, and what interests are served by the proposed changes.
The presence of Pat McFerron, simultaneously lobbying for Koch Industries and the District Attorneys Association while serving as the initiative’s chief strategist, symbolizes the complex web of relationships, interests, and agendas at play.
When Republican leaders warn that SQ 836 would “flood our elections with big money,” they’re pointing to a real concern about who gains power if the current system changes. Who is the big money, if not Tesla, Blackrock, Murdoch, Drummond? When reform advocates counter that the current system is broken and undemocratic, they’re documenting real problems with Oklahoma’s electoral dysfunction.
The question voters must answer is whether the solution offered by well funded national organizations, Democratic aligned donors, and a Koch Industries lobbyist is better than the flawed system Oklahomans have now.
That’s a question that deserves to be answered with full transparency about who’s paying for the campaign, what their motives are, and whose interests will be served if State Question 836 becomes law.
Writing By: Eli Fillets| Editing by Robbie Robertson
Editor’s Note:
This article is based on publicly available court documents, Oklahoma Ethics Commission records, Unite America disclosures, campaign finance reports, and verified news reporting.
Sources
State Question 836 & Oklahoma United
Oklahoma Secretary of State – Initiative Petition Filings
https://www.sos.ok.gov/gov/questions.aspx
Oklahoma Ethics Commission – Guardian Campaign Finance System (Vote Yes 836 filings)
https://guardian.ok.gov
Vote Yes 836 (Official Campaign Site)
https://www.voteyes836.com
Oklahoma United (Organization Background)
https://www.oklahomaunited.org
Polling & Voter Data
Oklahoma State Election Board – Voter Registration Statistics
https://oklahoma.gov/elections/voter-registration/voter-registration-statistics.html
Oklahoma State Election Board – Election Results & Historical Data
https://oklahoma.gov/elections/elections-results.html
U.S. Election Assistance Commission – 2024 Election Administration & Voting Survey (Turnout Data)
https://www.eac.gov/research-and-data/studies-and-reports
Ballotpedia – Oklahoma Primary System Overview
https://ballotpedia.org/Primary_elections_in_Oklahoma
Alaska Division of Elections – Top Four Primary Results (2020 Reform)
https://www.elections.alaska.gov
Washington Secretary of State – Top Two Primary System Information
https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections
California Secretary of State – Top Two Primary Data
https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections
National Reform Infrastructure & Funding
Unite America – Official Website
https://www.uniteamerica.org
Unite America IRS Form 990 Filings (ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer)
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/821106814
Quadrivium Foundation – IRS Filings
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits
Federal Election Commission – Individual Contribution Search
https://www.fec.gov/data/
Legislation Referenced
Oklahoma Senate Bill 1027 (2025)
https://www.oklegislature.gov
Oklahoma House Bill 3299 (2026)
https://www.oklegislature.gov
Oklahoma Statutes Title 19 – District Attorneys Council
https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/Index.asp?ftdb=STOKST19
Lobbying & Ethics Records
Oklahoma Ethics Commission – Lobbyist Registration Database
https://guardian.ok.gov/Public/LobbyistSearch.aspx
CMA Strategies – Corporate Information
https://www.cmastrategies.com
Cole Hargrave Snodgrass & Associates
https://www.chsassociates.com
Opposition & Public Statements
Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA)
https://ocpathink.org
Public statements by Oklahoma elected officials (archived via official government websites and press releases)
Support Independent Journalism
At The Oklahoma Post, we report on stories that others overlook; from local courtrooms to statewide accountability. We rely on reader support to stay independent. Your contribution helps keep the public informed. If you’d like to help us keep publishing local voices and independent reporting, consider making a one-time donation today. Every contribution makes a difference.
Got evidence, events, birthdays, obits or inside info?
Email The Oklahoma Post confidentially: editor@theokpost.com
And for the record: unlike the courthouse clique, The Oklahoma Post runs on facts, not dark money.
© 2026 The Oklahoma Post |
By The People’s Popular Paper | Oklahoma Special Report
2026 -The Oklahoma Post – TheOKPost.com is dedicated to delivering relevant news and information to Oklahomans, sharing their stories, pictures, and experiences. The content on this website includes contributions from various individuals and links to external public and privately owned sources. The views and opinions expressed in user-generated content are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect The Oklahoma Post. The Oklahoma Post does not independently verify the accuracy of third-party contributions and rely upon contributors to fact-check their work. By sharing links and allowing open contributions, TheOKPost.com exercises the right to free speech and providing a platform for diverse perspectives.
