How To Win Elections By Lyin', Cheatin', and Stealin'

   In contemplating the title of this post for the subject at hand, I remember reading How To Win Elections Without Hardly Cheatin' At All, a history of several Oklahoma elections and politicians by Martin Hauan. Martin Hauan was a campaign consultant for many state candidates and politicians during the 50's, 60's, and 70's in Oklahoma. I read the book hoping to find out what dirty tricks politicians were likely to employ, since I might one day run for office. I certainly would not cheat to win an election, but I wanted to know what tactics might be used by any potential opponents. The book has chapter titles such as Politricks University, Justice for Sale, Things I Could Go to Hell For, and Senator Reachout, so surely I could find out what unethical, illegal, and unscrupulous tactics were likely to be employed against me - if I were running for office. Mr Hauan, however, did not detail the ways to win elections by cheating - he only gave a very interesting history of those politicians who some thought did cheat, and eventually got caught. So, the title of my post How To Win Elections By Lyin', Cheatin', And Stealin' also belies its content. It will not give you inside information on how to win elections by being unethical or breaking the law, but I have shared some insight as to what I learned when running (and losing) for office this past summer.
   We've all heard what is perhaps the biggest public school news story of 2016 - Joy Hofmeister conspired with her campaign consultant Fount Holland and a "dark money" group to beat Janet Barresi in the 2014 primary and then John Cox in the general election for the State Superintendent of Schools seat. Conspiracy is a felony by legal standards, and anyone found guilty in a court of law could serve jail time and pay a hefty fine. It's anyone's guess as to the guilt or innocence of Hofmeister, Holland, et al, though, as the trial is yet to begin. Political candidates in Oklahoma are not allowed to receive more than $2,700 from any one source. If a political candidate does knowingly receive more than $2,700 from anyone, any business, any corporation, or any "dark money" group - then campaign laws are broken. If a candidate for public office conspires with a consulting firm and a dark money group to sling mud on opposing candidates in excess of $2,700, then a crime may have been committed. This is what Joy Hofmeister and Fount Holland (the consultant) have been charged - but not yet convicted. If eventually convicted, the title of this post fits the situation. Many candidates and office holders are currently distancing themselves from the consulting firm involved, AH Strategies (Fount Holland is part owner), for obvious reasons - many have employed Fount Holland, and don't want to get caught up in ANY investigations for wrong-doing. I think it would be beneficial to examine clients of Fount Holland, other than Joy Hofmeister. Where there's smoke, there's usually fire - and if AH Strategies/Joy Hofmeister is the smoke, then the fire could be other candidates, elected officials. and dark money groups.
   The "players" in the conspiracy indictments should be examined first and foremost in order to determine if a wider net should be cast for more unethical and illegal campaign shenanigans. First of all, Joy Hofmeister is an inexperienced newcomer to the political arena, so her involvement must be as a mistake. At the very least, her inability to hide unethical and illegal behavior had to be a factor in "getting caught", because AH Strategies is the best in the business at getting away with illegal campaign activities. As a matter of fact, Hofmeister's consulting firm even told her how to answer one question the district attorney's office asked. If asked "Did you communicate with the dark money group to coordinate mudslinging against Janet Barresi? The answer is NO". In effect, they told her to lie, and keep lying. It's a message that many other clients of AH have learned well. When asked about involvement in dark money schemes, clients are taught to claim no knowledge of any campaign shenanigans. One client of Fount Holland had the line memorized perfectly - when asked about the negative campaign ads and possible illegal expenditures, he simply said "Unless it says authorized and paid for by friends of  *** *******, it is not from me." In other words, I know nothing about it. It's too bad Joy Hofmeister evidently did not answer the question correctly, as did many other clients of Fount Holland. It is understood, however, that the District Attorney came across the conspiracy by accident while working another case, and examining cell phone texts to and from Chad Alexander (another employee of Hofmeister).
   I don't know if all those charged, including Joy Hofmeister, are truly guilty of conspiracy and accepting illegal campaign contributions. If they are guilty, however, I believe it would be wise to examine other political clients of AH Strategies (who can be found here, and here), for possible campaign crimes. One client, Dan Kirby, recently resigned from the State House as possible sexual harassment charges came to light, and then rescinded his resignation when it was revealed that the former Speaker of the House, Jeff Hickman, may have provided "hush money" (public funds) to Kirby's offended assistant. Clients like Kirby would be reason enough to "cast a wider net" and investigate all (Fount Holland/Chad Alexander) clients. Another client, Julie Daniels, said if she had known about the felony charges, she would have fired Fount Holland.
   Slinging mud on political opponents is not a crime, as AH Strategies and its clients know all too well, but illegal use of campaign funds and conspiring with dark money to sling mud - are crimes. We can only hope that all those guilty of such crimes will eventually be caught, and be forced to mend their ways.