Dark money group running ads attacking ‘liberal’ OK Supreme Court justices has political agenda of its own

OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR) — A dark money group, with a platform calling for Oklahoma to give only the governor power to pick judges and has close ties to a Project 2025 advisory organization, is behind a television ad urging voters not to retain three “liberal” Oklahoma Supreme Court justices.

The dark money group behind the ads has close ties to the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA), a highly influential Oklahoma-based non-profit conservative think tank and advisory sponsor of the Heritage Foundation’s ‘Project 2025’ plan.

The ads paint the three justices as liberal partisan activists, and also claims Oklahoma’s longtime system used for nominating judges and justices is politically biased.

News 4 has found the dark money group running the ads has a published political agenda advocating for the dismantling of Oklahoma’s existing non-partisan judicial nominating system and replacing it with a system the state abandoned nearly 60 years ago in an effort to reduce corruption. 

A former Oklahoma Attorney General and longtime lawyer says the ad, attacking non-partisan judges as partisans, sets an extremely dangerous precedent.

The ad has been airing on local television stations in several Oklahoma markets the past couple weeks.

It specifically targets Oklahoma Supreme Court Justices Yvonne Kauger, James Edmonson and Noma Gurich.

The ad begins with a bold claim.

“Oklahoma Supreme Court justices Gurich, Kauger and Edmonson, all three nominated by the unelected, liberal Judicial Nominating Commission and appointed by Democrat governors,” a narrator says. “Is it any surprise all three are activist liberal judges?”

The ad continues to paint the three justices as partisan activists.

“Killing common sense lawsuit reform, adding millions to the cost of doing business, padding the pockets of trial lawyers,” the narrator says.

It ends with a call for action.

"You have the power to remove all three,” the narrator says. “It’s simple, vote no to remove liberals Gurich, Kauger and Edmonson from our Oklahoma Supreme Court.”

If an ad attacking state Supreme Court justices feels out of the ordinary, experts say it’s because it is.

"In my 50 year political career in Oklahoma—I've been around long time, I've seen a lot—I've never seen an ad like that against judges,” Former Oklahoma Attorney General and co-host of KFOR’s ‘FlashPoint’ Mike Turpen said. “I find that ad shocking, repugnant.”

Turpen says there's a reason judges up for retention don't have an 'R' or 'D' next to their name on the ballot.

He says Oklahoma used to have a problem with corruption among judges, before the state switched to its current judicial nominating system.

"We had a scandal in this state back in the 1960s,” Turpen said. “Three Supreme Court judges were forced off the bench for taking bribes."

Before that scandal, it was the sole responsibility of the Oklahoma governor to appoint state appellate and Supreme Court judges.

Under the old system, the governor could pick any judge they wanted. They would just need to get their pick confirmed by the senate to appoint the judge to the court.

But in light of that bribery scandal, in 1967, Oklahomans amended the state's constitution to create a new system, which is still used today.

The constitutional amendment established a statewide 'Judicial Nominating Commission.'

The Judicial Nominating Commission is a group of 15 people.

Six of them are hand-picked by the governor. Another six are chosen by the Oklahoma Bar Association. The Speaker of the House and Senate President Pro Tem get to pick one member each. Then, all those members get to pick one final member together.

When there is a judicial opening in Oklahoma, the 15 members of the Judicial Nominating Commission search for judges across the state, and create a list of three judges they wish to “nominate.”

The Governor then gets to appoint one of those three nominees the court vacancy, following a senate confirmation.

All three justices mentioned in the attack ad went through that nominating and appointment process.

So did all other current Oklahoma Supreme Court justices.

Gov. George Nigh, a Democrat, appointed Justice Kauger to the Supreme Court in 1984 after being nominated by the Judicial Nominating Commission.

Gov. Brad Henry, also a Democrat, appointed Justice Edmonson to the Supreme Court in 2003 and Justice Gurich in 2011. Both justices were also first nominated by the Judicial Nominating Commission.

Of the six Supreme Court justices not up for retention on the ballot this year, five were appointed by Republican governors, one was appointed by a Democrat governor.

In total, four of the nine current Supreme Court justices were appointed by a Democrat, and five were appointed by a Republican.

“That's a good system,” Turpen said. “And that way you de-politicize the system."

But with the ad seeming to suggest the opposite, News 4 set out to find the group behind it to share their perspective.

Fine print at the end of the ad says a group called “People for Opportunity” is behind it.

There is not much information available about People for Opportunity. The group’s address listed in the ad’s fine print is just a P.O. Box.

People for Opportunity has a Facebook page, but has not made many posts.

The most recent post is a video of the current TV ad attacking the three Supreme Court justices. 

Previous posts on the page include videos of ads the group ran in 2022 urging people to re-elect Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican.

People for Opportunity has a website containing minimal information about the group.

A page on the site lists People for Opportunity's policy priorities, including advocating for the use of public dollars to send children to private schools, defending the use of the electoral college system for presidential elections, “sensible criminal justice reform” and ending Oklahoma’s state income tax.

It also mentions one more policy priority: “reforming the judiciary.”

Specifically, People for Opportunity’s website calls for eliminating the Judicial Nominating Committee and returning to the old system Oklahoma had before the 1960s scandal, giving the governor unilateral control of judicial nominations—with appointments just needing to be confirmed by the senate.

People for Opportunity lists four board members on its website.

Two of them, Jonathan Small and Trent England, work for OCPA.

In fact, Small is OCPA’s President.

Turpen says, OCPA and the policies it advocates for, play a huge influence over Oklahoma leaders.

"OCPA is a very conservative think tank that generally does the bidding of Kevin Stitt and Ryan Walters, conservative elected officials,” Turpen said.

Those are two elected officials Turpen says happen to have been dealt some losses recently by the Oklahoma Supreme Court—on issues like tribal relations, control over school library books, the use of public dollars to establish a religious charter school, among others.

"I truly believe that they're upset that Ryan Walters can't control what books go into the school libraries across the state of Oklahoma,” Turpen said.

People for Opportunity is not a Political Action Committee (PAC), so its donor list is not required to be public.

News 4 has attempted for several days to reach the group via phone, email and Facebook, but have not heard back.

Setting the group’s political agenda aside, Turpen says turning routine judge retention ballot questions into partisan elections is an extremely slippery slope.

“It's a dangerous precedent because we're going to have dark money trying to influence who the judges are,” Turpen said “Judges are supposed to serve based on the facts the law interprets. Same with honesty and integrity. No fear, no favor.”

He says law also prevents judges from campaigning for themselves, leaving them without the option to run their own ads to refute the attack ads.

“To be running a campaign against three judges on a retention ballot is unfair,” Turpen said. "We want judges to be about right and wrong, not right and left. We want judges with no fear, no favor, and that’s the kind of judges we have right now. And for them to run that campaign against these three judges.. it’s wrong. And it’s very misleading I might ad.”