By Tim Allen, Managing Editor
The quickest way to weaken a political talking point is often to add another paragraph of history.
That’s not a criticism of political campaigns. They simplify complicated issues, emphasize the facts that best support their candidate and present voters with a clear, but often incomplete, narrative.
History, however, has a way of resisting simplification. That’s what we saw more than once this week in Oklahoma’s Republican gubernatorial runoff.
Former state Sen. Mike Mazzei’s campaign argued that Attorney General Gentner Drummond subjected Oklahoma farmers and poultry producers to years of unnecessary uncertainty by failing to resolve the state’s long-running Illinois River poultry lawsuit sooner. The campaign also questioned Drummond’s donations to Oklahoma Watch, a nonprofit investigative news organization, and has repeatedly criticized a campaign contribution made in Drummond’s name to former President Joe Biden.
Each makes a point. None tells the whole story.
Take the Illinois River lawsuit. The Mazzei campaign’s argument is straightforward: Drummond should have settled the case sooner.
The next paragraph of history matters.
Former Attorney General Drew Edmondson filed the lawsuit on June 13, 2005. By the time Drummond took office in January 2023, the litigation had already consumed more than 17 years and stretched across four previous attorneys general. Nine days after Drummond was sworn in, U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell issued the long-awaited liability ruling. After a remedial judgment, appeals and additional negotiations, the parties reached the settlement announced this month.
Drummond is fully accountable for the decision to settle the case and for the negotiations that occurred during his tenure. Voters are entitled to decide whether he acted too slowly, too quickly or reached the right agreement.
But more than 80% of the lawsuit’s lifespan had already passed before he took office. That doesn’t answer every question about the settlement. It does provide important context when assigning responsibility for a case that spanned five attorneys general and 21 years.
The search for the missing paragraph didn’t end with the Illinois River lawsuit.
It also surfaced in the debate over Oklahoma Watch. The Mazzei campaign argued that Drummond’s $500 donation showed he had financially supported what it characterized as a left-leaning news organization.
But the missing paragraph could be found on Oklahoma Watch’s own donor list. Under its donor transparency policy, the organization had long published its list of contributors, including Drummond’s donation in 2024. That same donor list also includes Oklahomans from across the political spectrum, including Republicans, Democrats, business leaders and philanthropists.
Voters are free to decide what significance Drummond’s donation should carry. But the complete donor list paints a broader picture than any single contributor can.
The same is true of repeated references to a campaign contribution made in Gentner Drummond’s name to former President Joe Biden.
The next paragraph of history is that the contribution was quickly withdrawn and refunded. Wendy Drummond has said she made the contribution without her husband’s knowledge and later apologized. Mazzei campaign materials have consistently emphasized that the contribution was made without mentioning that it was later refunded. Both facts are part of the public record.
Federal campaign finance records also show Gentner Drummond has spent years financially supporting Republican candidates, the Republican National Committee and President Donald Trump. Whether voters find that explanation persuasive is entirely up to them, but it, too, is part of the public record.
None of this suggests campaigns should stop drawing contrasts or asking uncomfortable questions. Elections are supposed to test candidates, challenge records and force difficult conversations.
But campaigns also have an incentive to tell the version of a story that best serves their argument. Voters should resist the temptation to mistake that for the whole story.
The most important question to ask after every debate, television ad, press release or social media post isn’t whether the facts are true. It’s whether there’s another paragraph.
Because sometimes the missing paragraph doesn’t change the facts.
It changes what those facts mean.
The reporting behind this column:
