Oklahoma is a hard state to categorize when it comes to politics. At first glance, Oklahoma looks like a Democratic state. The state legislature has been majority Democrat since 1921, most state ofces have been held by Democrats, and Democrats have held the edge in voter registration. Oklahoma also has had only three Republican governors throughout its history, along with 22 Democrats. This led political scientists to classify Oklahoma as majority Democrat. Yet, since 1960 Oklahoma has voted only once at the presidential level for a Democratic candidate—Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1964. Moreover, many of its congressional seats have been held by Republicans, and in 2010 ve out of six seats were held by Republicans, with only Representative Dan Boren in the Second District in eastern Oklahoma being the lone Democrat. And, if asked, most Oklahomans, except in the southeast corner of the state, would probably maintain that there are more Republicans than Democrats in Oklahoma, even though they would be wrong. The Republican Party, though, has been making gains, taking control of the Oklahoma House of Representatives in 2004 and the Oklahoma Senate in 2008. After the 2006 elections, the Oklahoma Senate was the most competitive in the country, with a 24D–24R ratio in that body. Oklahomans also gave the most lopsided victory of any state to Republican John McCain in the 2008 Presidential Election. 17 In the 2010 elections, the Republicans won all statewide ofces including Governor and Lieutenant Governor, with stronger majorities in both the Oklahoma House and the Oklahoma Senate.

COMPETITION FOR ELECTED SEATS
Party competition must be measured by another factor—competition for elected seats—and this is clearly an aspect where Oklahoma needs some improvement. Making sure that there is a choice of candidates on a ballot is crucial for civic engagement. After all, if one candidate is elected year after year, there is not much democracy, and that will discourage voter turnout and civic engagement. Oklahoma has taken care of one aspect. In 1990, Oklahoma became the first state in the nation to adopt term limits for its state legislators. These term limits require that state legislators can only serve twelve years in either the Oklahoma House and/or Senate. As adopted, term limits apply only to state legislators, but did not completely take effect on Oklahoma's state legislators until 2004. By the Oklahoma constitution, the governor and lieutenant governor are also limited to two terms, and several other state–level positions have term limits as well.

Oklahoma does have a problem with making sure its legislative elections are contested. As an example, at the U.S. Congress level, only 30 of the 435 seats in the 2010 elections were uncontested, seven for the Republicans (1.6% of all seats), and 23 for the Democrats (5.3% of all seats). And in Oklahoma, of the 101 races for the 2010 Oklahoma House, 47 were uncontested or 47.5% of all seats. The Republicans with the greater number of seats in the House to defend (62 to 39) had a greater percentage of their seats uncontested (53.2%) compared with the Democrats (35.9%). This is a signicant challenge for Oklahoma to address because the lack of competition can have a serious impact on voter turnout and thus civic engagement. Despite candidate recruitment training sessions held by both parties in Oklahoma, there are still too many uncontested seats. When the six uncontested Oklahoma Senate seats in 2010 were added in, there were 125 races for the state legislature in the 2010 elections, and 53 of these had only one name on the ballot. 18

BALLOT ACCESS
Another civic engagement challenge that Oklahoma may need to address is ballot access. Despite being a very populist state, Oklahoma has some of the toughest ballot–access laws in the country. Not only is Oklahoma a closed primary state, but Oklahoma also makes it very difcult for third–party or independent presidential candidates to get on the ballot. While independent candidates statewide only need to le to run for state office, independent candidates for president must gather signatures equal to 5% of those voting for governor or president in the last general election. To remain on the ballot, a new party's candidate for governor or president must draw at least 10% of the vote in the next election. Thus, it took a petitioning requirement of 51,781 signatures for a third party to secure full party ballot access, and 37,027 signatures to place a presidential candidate in the 2004 elections. For the 2012 Presidential Elections, this will mean 43,880 signatures just to get on the ballot. 19

Thus, in the 2004 U.S. Presidential Elections, Oklahoma was the only state in the nation whose voters were limited to just two choices, Democrat and Republican. Half of the states had at least six names on the ballot, and Colorado had 12 names. 20 Voters in 49 states had the opportunity to vote for Libertarian nominee Michael Badnarik, and voters in 36 states had the opportunity to vote for independent/Reform candidate Ralph Nader. Oklahoma voters, however, were not given these choices, despite attempts by Libertarians in Oklahoma to get on the ballot in 2004. The Libertarian Party of Oklahoma found that of the 2,098,750 registered voters in Oklahoma only 1,234,229 (59%) voted for a presidential candidate. 21 In the last nine years, no Oklahoma voter has been permitted to vote for anyone for president except for the nominees of the two major parties.

MONEY AND OKLAHOMA POLITICS
Another way that Oklahomans can engage civically is by donating money, either to political candidates or political causes. Monetary donations are monitored by two organizations, the Federal Elections Commission for candidates to federal office (presidents and their vice presidents, U.S. House, and U.S. Senate candidates) and the Oklahoma Ethics Commission for state and local candidates. In terms of giving, there has been some remarkable consistency at both the federal and state levels, but there is much greater volatility when donations to the political parties are examined.

For example, at the federal level, Oklahoma has consistently ranked between 29th and 31st among states for total itemized contributions to federal candidates from 2000 to 2010. Oklahomans in 2009–2010, for example, gave $8,346,104 to federal candidates, ranking the state 31st among states. Oklahoma has had similar rankings for individual donations over $200 (currently ranking 31st with $9,805,926 in 2009–2010), with overall rankings ranging from 28th to 31st between 2000 and 2010. Moreover, with PAC donations, Oklahomans also have remained remarkably consistent, with rankings ranging between 27th and 33rd from 2000 to 2010, and currently at 27th with $1,181,800 in donations . 22

At the state level there also has been some consistency. Oklahoma Senate candidates usually raise more money than their House colleagues, raising $138,637.24 on average for the 2008 Senate races compared with $46,402.22 for the 2008 House contests. 23 In several statewide races, such as governor and treasurer, the candidates spent more than $1 million total to win those seats in 2006, while in other statewide races that year, such as attorney general, state auditor and inspector, and corporation commissioner, the candidates spent between $300,000 and $500,000. Not surprisingly, winners usually raise more money than their losing opponents, with Oklahoma House winners raising three times more than the losers, and the Senate winners raising twice as much as their opponents. 24

Moreover, there also has been some consistency in terms of PAC money, or the donation of money to candidates by various interests in Oklahoma. Oklahomans take a much higher percentage of in–state as opposed to out–of–state PAC money. The percentage of in–state PAC money given to state legislative candidates has stayed consistently between 80–90% for the last six elections. The list of active PACs has also remained fairly similar. In the 2006 and 2008 elections, the “big” PACs, in terms of the total money given, were Energy for Oklahomans, Chesapeake Energy, OK Ag Fund, Oklahoma Independent Energy PAC, and the Realtors PAC. Thus, it is not a surprise that the Oil and Gas PACs gave the second largest amount of donations in 2006 and 2008 (Health PACs were #1). There was also remarkable consistency in the number of PACs giving one to two donations (107 in 2006, 108 in 2008), and those giving more than100 donations (under ten for both 2006 and 2008). 25 However, if candidates really wanted to do well, they needed to attract party/ideology money. This is because these types of PACs were the most likely to give the largest average donation by category in the 2006 and 2008 elections. Candidates like PACs that give large average donations because then they have to chase after fewer donors.

Yet the biggest changes in Oklahoma money have taken place with the parties. This was true at both federal and state/local levels. At the federal level, Oklahoma has ranged from the highest rank of 6th to a rank of 29th in terms of percentage giving to Republicans. In the 2009–2010 election cycle, Oklahoma currently ranks 7th, giving 71.4% of its donations to federal Republican candidates. The low point for Republican candidates came in 2004 when Oklahoma ranked only 29th. Oklahoma has traditionally ranked between 40–45th in percentage giving to Democrats, currently ranking 43rd or giving 28.4% to Democrats. But back in 2004, Oklahomans ranked 22nd in its giving to Democrats, giving 40.6% that year. 26

At the state level, one could almost ask, “Where did the political party money go?” as both parties have experienced a noticeable drop in their donations to candidates. Unfortunately for the Democrats, they have been hit the worst. Republican–donating PACs were among the top 10 PACs in both the average amount and the total amount donated in the 2006 elections with ve to six PACs on each list. But, the Republican–leaning PACs were not found at all on the 2008 top 10 lists. The Democrats fared even worse. The Democrats had only one PAC that gave mostly to Democrats in 2006, LEGAL, which is a lawyers' PAC. However, by 2008, the Democrats also did not make either list. Even more troubling for the Democrats, they experienced a remarkable decline in the overall amount of giving. Combining both the ideology and party PAC money, the Democrats actually gave almost $13,000 more to Democratic candidates in 2008 than they did in 2006 ($116,590.64 in 2006 and $129,249.98 in 2008). However, compared with the Republicans, these amounts were bad news for the Democrats. While the Republican ideology/party PACs gave $721,908 in 2006 and only $514,345 in 2008, thus experiencing a signicant decline, the Republicans still gave $385,000+ more than the Democrats did in the 2008 elections. As a result, the Republican party/ideology PACs were able to give to 234 candidates in 2008, while the Democratic party/ideology PACs were able to give to only 96 candidates. This obviously put the Democrats at a severe disadvantage and could be one of the reasons they lost both Oklahoma House and Senate seats in the 2008 elections. 27

The other remarkable change in election money is the sheer increase in the amount of spending. In 1998, a state House candidate in Oklahoma spent $25,970 on average. Today, that is $46,402, with some candidates spending more than $400,000 for an Oklahoma House seat in the 2008 elections. On the Senate side, the gap is even greater with the average Senate candidate spending $57,082 in 1998 but $138,637 in 2008, and some candidates spending more than $500,000 in 2008. 28