By Missouri Free Press
Across two neighboring states, two political outsiders are building campaigns around a message that many voters increasingly believe: government operates differently when nobody is watching.
In Oklahoma, Senate candidate Sean Buckner is running under the slogan “Audit the Senate,” promising to expose what he describes as corruption, secrecy, and unchecked institutional power.
In Missouri, Ike Skelton is making a remarkably similar argument while running for Missouri State Senate District 6.
While the two men differ in style and background, the similarities in their messaging are difficult to ignore. Both frame themselves less as traditional politicians and more as activists confronting systems they believe have escaped public accountability.
And if both men gain political influence in their respective states, it could signal the growth of a broader regional movement focused on surveillance, transparency, and resistance to centralized government power.
“I’m an activist, not a politician.”
During a phone interview with MOFreePress on Wednesday, Skelton described himself as “an activist, not a politician.”
That distinction matters because much of Skelton’s campaign appears built around challenging institutions rather than simply managing them.
When asked what Missouri agency operates with the least accountability, Skelton did not point toward law enforcement, regulatory agencies, or bureaucratic departments.
He answered bluntly:
“The entire Missouri General Assembly.”
Skelton argued that while many state agencies can at least be pressured through Sunshine Law requests, Missouri’s legislature, especially the Senate, often conducts business behind closed doors.
That concern over secrecy appears to be one of the driving forces behind his campaign.
When asked what the very first bill he would personally sponsor would be if elected to Missouri’s Senate, Skelton answered:
“Transparency in the Senate.”
He specifically stated he would push legislation allowing cameras to visually record activity inside the Missouri Senate chamber rather than relying solely on audio recordings.
For many voters frustrated with backroom negotiations and closed-door lobbying, that message may resonate far beyond his district.
The surveillance issue that launched a movement
Skelton first gained widespread attention after taking direct action against Flock license plate reader cameras in Camden County.
To supporters, the incident transformed him into a symbol of resistance against government surveillance.
To critics, it crossed a line.
But regardless of opinion, the event placed Skelton squarely at the center of one of the fastest-growing debates in America: how much tracking technology should government possess?
When MOFreePress asked Skelton where he personally draws the line between public safety and unconstitutional tracking, he anchored his answer in both the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 15 of Missouri’s Constitution.
Skelton stated:
“Anything that I believe violates the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 15 of Missouri’s Constitution.”
He went on to argue that while Americans may not have an expectation of privacy from each other in public spaces, they absolutely should maintain one from the government itself.
He also pushed back against comparisons between government surveillance and private cameras inside stores or personal cellphones.
According to Skelton, the distinction is simple:
“Those individuals can’t put me in cuffs and remove my freedoms.”
That philosophy closely mirrors the rhetoric being used by Buckner’s “Audit the Senate” campaign in Oklahoma, where distrust of institutional power and concern over centralized surveillance have become central themes.
Data centers, digital control, and the fear of centralized power
One of the most revealing portions of MOFreePress’ interview with Skelton came during a discussion about proposed data centers near the Lake of the Ozarks.
When asked what concerns him most — environmental impact, infrastructure strain, corporate influence, or citizen privacy — Skelton answered:
“All of that.”
While he acknowledged that improved cooling systems could potentially reduce environmental damage, he warned about the long-term effects large industrial data infrastructure could have on local communities.
He cited concerns involving:
- drinking water
- noise pollution
- light pollution
- strain on energy infrastructure
- corporate tax incentives
- government favoritism
- mass data collection
Skelton also warned about what he sees as a dangerous alliance between corporations, artificial intelligence, and government surveillance systems.
During the interview, he referenced prior federal programs that collected and analyzed communications data for trigger words connected to terrorism investigations.
He argued that modern AI-powered surveillance systems are only beginning to show their capabilities.
“They have only touched the surface on what those cameras and AI can do.”
Perhaps most notably, Skelton expressed serious concern about the infrastructure required to support a future centralized digital currency system.
He stated:
“We cannot ever allow that to happen.”
That type of rhetoric, opposition to centralized digital control, distrust of large-scale data collection, and warnings about corporate-government partnerships, is increasingly becoming a defining characteristic of outsider populist campaigns across the country.
Similar language. Similar distrust. Similar momentum.
Neither Buckner nor Skelton are running conventional campaigns.
Both men frame themselves as watchdogs rather than lawmakers.
Both argue government institutions increasingly operate without meaningful public oversight.
Both speak openly about surveillance concerns, institutional secrecy, and the concentration of power.
And both appear to be tapping into a growing voter frustration that stretches far beyond party lines.
Whether voters agree with them or not, their campaigns represent a political shift that establishment figures can no longer easily dismiss.
The larger question now is what happens if candidates carrying this message begin winning seats in state legislatures and Congress.
Would it lead to meaningful government transparency reforms?
Would it create stronger constitutional protections against surveillance technologies?
Or would it intensify already growing distrust between citizens and institutions?
Those questions may soon move from political theory to legislative reality.
What makes Skelton particularly interesting is that even when presented with potential legislation during MOFreePress’ interview, he repeatedly avoided making blanket promises. Instead of immediately endorsing bills for political points, his consistent response was that he would need to review the exact language first. In today’s political climate, where many candidates rush to give voters the answer they think people want to hear, that restraint stands out.
Supporters will likely view that approach as thoughtful and principled. Critics may see it as cautious or politically calculated. Either way, it reflects someone attempting to position himself outside the traditional mold of scripted career politicians.
At the same time, Buckner’s “Audit the Senate” message in Oklahoma reflects many of the same frustrations: secrecy, institutional protection, and the belief that government increasingly shields itself from the public it serves.
Whether these movements ultimately succeed remains to be seen. But one thing is becoming increasingly clear: voters across America are showing growing interest in candidates who challenge entrenched systems rather than simply joining them.
And at MOFreePress, we have always believed government needs fewer polished politicians and more people willing to question power, challenge secrecy, and remember who they actually work for.