The Oklahoma State Capital

Just a few days before Christmas, on December 16, it dropped. It was the key moment that allowed the intelligent observer to immediately issue a verdict on the speakership of incoming House Speaker Kyle Hilbert: the official press release detailing the makeup of Hilbert's leadership team for the 2025–2026 legislative session.

The lengthy release included newly created, high-level leadership positions of questionable purpose, i.e., fake leadership positions; an array of new “Oversight” super committees—a logistical nightmare designed to give the House Speaker's close allies a whole new layer of control over legislation; and many other committee positions that, on paper, might appear important but, in reality, are rendered almost meaningless by the committee structure.

In fact, so numerous were the positions created that several House members were assigned to multiple roles, with certain privileged individuals receiving three or even four positions.

But as the observant reader plowed through committee after committee and position after position, they would have noticed something significant: one very notable name was completely missing. And this wasn’t just some freshman member—after all, even freshmen were receiving vice-chairmanships. This was a senior member, perhaps the House's most influential, yet his name was nowhere to be found.

In a previous article, I analogized the situation faced by incoming House Speaker Kyle Hilbert to the description in 1 Kings of another young, new leader who came to power after the painfully long, harsh rule of his predecessor. The wise, older advisors counseled this leader, Rehoboam, to lighten the burden on the people. However, the young, foolish advisors suggested he become even more authoritarian than his predecessor. Rehoboam chose the latter approach—just as Kyle Hilbert has done with his new rules regime, implemented just days ago, plunging the House into its darkest days. Not only does it further concentrate power among a select few, but it also introduces new late-session guidelines that appear to gut transparency requirements designed to allow both the public and the conscientious members to read and understand legislation before the vote occurs.

But there’s one place where this analogy start to break down. Rehoboam, at least, had the wisdom to ask for advice from the older advisors who had served during Solomon’s reign. They were presumably in the room.

In Hilbert’s case, there’s no evidence that this ever happened. He likely never sought wise counsel or advice—at least not from one of the chamber’s most, if not the most, influential member.

You see, back in December, when Hilbert chose who to surround himself with, he selected personalities of known poor temperament, or being sycophantic lock-step followers, and even picked the controversial conservative-purger Chris Kannady to be his special counselor. Kannady’s 2018 dark-money-funded purge of House conservatives eliminated some of the most conscientious and intelligent House members—those most in step with the values of voters—destroying the House’s deliberative culture for years to come.

So when it came time to draft the House rules—the most critical step in the new speaker’s tenure and a significant determinant of its success or failure—it’s doubtful there was anyone in the room willing to provide a counterpoint to those advocating for eliminating transparency and consolidating power.

A wise leader might have asked this: "In the long years of the imperial speakership of Charles McCall, who in the House has had the courage to stand up to that imperial speaker and his errant policies, no matter the cost, and provide a counter-opinion to prevailing thought? That’s the person I need to hear from regularly. That’s the person I want at the Speaker’s conference table at all times. I need to find that person and bring them into the leadership team."

Who was that person?

Recent news stories provide the answer.

If you’ve watched the news recently, you’ve likely seen whistleblowers exposing the state’s latest corporate welfare debacle: Canoo. They’ve described the complete farce of that operation; it's a farce that the free market and reality have now revealed to the world.

For the past few years, the purported electric car manufacturer Canoo has been the cause du jour of Oklahoma politicians. The company, which once spent $20,000 at one of McCall’s Speaker’s Balls, hired a high-profile lobbyist and managed to dupe numerous Oklahoma politicians into their “emperor with no clothes” moment. Somehow, the politicians managed to have their bizarre electric vehicle—a glorified golf cart with a square steering wheel—sole-sourced by the state, a flagrant abuse of the purchasing system.

One can only imagine the dread and horror felt by state employees at the prospect of commuting in such a vehicle. The state actually appeared to issue a contract for 1,000 of them. And to the employees' likely delight and great relief, a few days ago, the house of cards finally collapsed. Despite relentless promotion by Oklahoma politicians, the company declared bankruptcy.

There are likely numerous not-so-great reasons why a company that was clearly never viable managed to wield such political pull. But now, circulating online, are images of politicians standing next to various prototypes, all experiencing their “emperor with no clothes” moment.

There’s one person, though, who you won’t find near any of those vehicles: Tom Gann.

Had the politicians listened to Gann, a free-market purist, they could have avoided this embarrassment. Way back in March of 2022, just as the state appeared to have locked in 15 million in funding to Canoo, Gann authored an op-ed cleverly titled, Is Oklahoma Being Sold Down the River for Canoo? In it, he outlined the folly of government using taxpayers’ money to interfere in the free market and enact corporate welfare.

Gann saw the truth: Canoo was a joke, obvious even to a casual observer. Wall Street knew it too, as reflected in the company’s quarterly reports and tanking stock price. Gann didn’t possess magical insight—he simply read the reports, monitored the stock, and recognized what in his opinion was incestuous business structure that would enrich a select few while preventing the company from ever becoming viable.

But, as is often the case, politicians pushed forward. As Calvin Coolidge once said, “Nothing is easier than spending the public’s money. It does not appear to belong to anybody.”

In Coolidge’s day, such obliviousness might have gone unnoticed. But in the age of social media, those photos of politicians posing with ridiculous vehicles will remain a lasting symbol of why everyone loses when politicians meddle in the free market—whether by creating a car company or anything else.

The Canoo scandal is just the tip of the iceberg. Time and again, Gann and a small handful of legislators have kept the light of truth burning in a dark House of Representatives dominated by those without core principles or even a basic understanding of the dynamics of the free market.

In this era of “green-energy corporate welfare on steroids”—a house of cards currently collapsing over Oklahoma politicians’ heads—Gann has stood firm. While others capriciously chased after woke, DEI-touting multinational corporations, promising hundreds of millions in taxpayer funds, with the focus and attention span of a teenager scrolling TikTok, Gann has consistently opposed these schemes.

Flash forward a few years, and this lonely duty has afforded Gann a prophetic aura.

In years past, he would have had plenty of company in opposing corporate welfare giveaways. But after the 2018 purge, Gann has stood almost alone in the House, with the support of two or three other courageous members, steadfast in his principles and courage.

This is why Hilbert’s first call as Speaker should have been to Gann: “I need your wisdom. Will you join my leadership team?”

Instead, Hilbert foolishly excluded Gann entirely. In a move known as “putting a member on ice,” Hilbert didn’t even extend Gann a vice-chairmanship on one of the near meaningless “policy” committees now mostly gutted of meaningful authority.

Yet, ironically, it may be Gann who emerges as the most influential legislator.

Reports suggest that leadership is currently interrogating members: “Are you going to vote with Tom?” This question alone illustrates the respect—and fear—Hilbert and his allies have for Gann. There are 101 positions in the House. When a member is asked, "Are you voting with Tom?" it should strike them that something very strange is happening. Why does leadership so fear this one, lone person? They may not have given him an official title, but they clearly recognize the threat he poses: the truth he represents, uncompromised by special interests or lobbyist money, which he refuses to accept, offers a powerful example, a template for legislators who truly wish to serve the people. They must refuse to surrender their votes to the Speaker, the leadership team, bureaucrats or lobbyists. And they must not get tricked by the dangerous, faux logic of "voting with the caucus" in order to be a "team player." Instead, they should read the bills and vote their conscience in accordance with the constitutionalist, conservative principles they campaigned on, i.e., their contract with the voter and the voter's values.

Gann’s path is not easy—it requires courage. But it is the path to true influence, one that rejects the soul-crushing compromises that betray voters’ trust, and most importantly, inspires others to be brave, and do the same.

In today’s House of Representatives, the most influential figure isn’t the Speaker or a member of leadership. It’s the legislator who is actually reading the bills, voting sans the influence of the lobbyists and their employers, having rejected their money, and thus, truly serving the people fearlessly: Oklahoma’s very own Mr. Smith—Tom Gann.

Editor's Note: While this article will strongly resonate with and inspire the vast majority of its readers, inside the Capitol it will be immediately rejected by many officeholders. However many freshmen members have yet to be completely co-opted by the status quo, but they soon will be. They will not be able to hold up to the pressure. If your state representative is a new officeholder, strongly consider sharing these concepts with them. Let them know you will be paying attention to their votes and encourage them to follow the example of the Legislature’s most influential member.

If you haven’t subscribed to these updates yet, much more like this is planned. Visit oklahomastatecapital.com/substack to receive future updates.