Alan Simpson once said, “In Wyoming, everything is politics. Except for politics, that’s personal.” And every election eventually brings, often sooner than later, a flood of negative campaign advertisements. Negative campaigning is the process of deliberately spreading negative information about someone or something to damage their public image.
That has never been made clearer than in the campaign activities of the Wyoming branch of Americans for Prosperity.
The federally focused branch Americans for Prosperity (AFP) has long promoted itself as an organization dedicated to advancing limited government, free markets, and individual liberty. Those principles dovetail with the beliefs of many Wyoming conservatives. Yet in recent election cycles, AFP's campaign strategy in Wyoming has become increasingly defined, not by promoting conservative ideas, but by attacking conservative candidates.
There is nothing inherently wrong with criticizing a candidate's record. Elections should include spirited debate, and voters deserve to know where candidates stand on important issues. The problem arises when campaign advertisements leave voters with an impression that is unsupported by the legislation they cite.
Americans for Prosperity in Wyoming and their director, Tyler Lindholm have a solid history of misrepresenting legislation, votes and making claims that simply are not true.
A recent AFP mailer illustrates that concern. The mailer, sent to districts with a conservative incumbent, accused candidates of "backing burdensome regulations that destroy energy jobs" and "standing with bureaucrats over families." Those are serious accusations, particularly in a state whose economy depends heavily on coal, oil, natural gas, and other mineral industries.
But the legislation cited in the mailer doesn’t match up with their claims. AFP based its attack on House Joint Resolution 3 (HJ0003), a proposed constitutional amendment considered during the 2026 Wyoming legislative session. Rather than creating new regulations for Wyoming's energy industry, HJ0003 would have required Wyoming voters to approve the storage of high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel within the state before such storage could occur.
The resolution stated simply that no high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel could be permanently stored in Wyoming unless the proposal first received approval from Wyoming voters through a statewide election. It was a question about public approval for nuclear waste storage—not legislation regulating coal mines, oil wells, natural gas production, or power plants.
We can disagree over whether such a constitutional amendment is good public policy. Some may believe requiring voter approval creates unnecessary barriers, while others may argue that Wyoming citizens should have the final say before becoming a permanent storage site for the nation's highest-level nuclear waste. Those are legitimate policy disagreements.
What is far more difficult to justify is portraying a vote on HJ0003 as support for "burdensome regulations that destroy energy jobs." That characterization is misleading because the resolution did not establish a regulatory framework governing Wyoming's traditional energy industries. Instead, it addressed whether Wyoming voters should approve the permanent storage of high-level radioactive waste before it could occur within the state.
Likewise, the mailer's accusation that the candidate was "standing with bureaucrats over families" is disconnected from the actual substance of the resolution. HJ0003 would have shifted decision-making away from government agencies by requiring approval from Wyoming's voters themselves. Whether one agrees with that approach or not, it is difficult to characterize a proposal that gives citizens direct voting authority as placing bureaucrats above families.
Melissa Butcher (Ranchester), running for Wyoming Senate District 21 against Rep. Ken Pendergraft, is the beneficiary of one of AFP’s mailers. When asked by The Open Range Record if she endorsed the mailer, Butcher said, “I don’t like the style. It’s not my style to attack my opponent. I might say something about his record, but not like this.” She added, “But I can’t ask them not to do that.”
There’s nothing in Wyoming statutes preventing a candidate from asking a political action committee not to negatively campaign in a district. The main problem with the AFP mailer on the nuclear disposal resolution, however, is that it completely misrepresents what the resolution would do.
When asked if she had read HJ0003, Butcher replied, “I have read the resolution. There’s a reason we have a legislature. Are we creating the same thing California has? Are we bringing California policies here?”
She went on to say, “It would be a burdensome regulation to put it to a vote. It would create a tough environment for investors to bring in additional layers of regulation and require approval of the public.”
HJ0003, had it passed, would not have created any regulations. Instead, the question of nuclear waste disposal would be put to voters. Black’s Law Dictionary defines the term “regulation” as, “the act or process of controlling by rule or restriction.” This is the same assertion AFP was making in the mailer.
Rep. Ken Pendergraft (Sheridan) wrote a brief column in The Open Range Record in which he said of the mailer, “This resolution would have done only one thing: amend the constitution . . . to require an affirmative vote of the people of the state before any high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel can be stored in Wyoming. In short, ask the people if they want to be asked before we become a dumping ground for nuclear waste. Rather than make such a decision for the people, I wanted to ask their opinion first. Plain and simple.”
Pendergraft added, “This, friends and neighbors, is exactly the kind of BS you need to beware of. Please, do your homework, then get out and vote.”
Around the State
In what is perhaps the only conservative thing AFP has done this campaign season, they saved graphic design costs and sent the same HJ3 mailing to several districts with the names and pictures changed.
In the Senate District 1 race, Wyoming Speaker of the House Chip Neiman is running against Senator Ogden Driskill. Driskill has never run in an election with fewer than 3 candidates vying for the seat. Consequently, he has never been close to receiving 51% of the vote. The 2026 primary election is different. This year, he has one opponent in Speaker Chip Neiman. AFP is, not surprisingly, supporting Driskill.
Neiman explained the inaccuracies of AFP’s HJ3 mailing in a video posted to his Facebook account.
Who Actually Votes Against Energy
Americans for Prosperity in Wyoming is run by former Wyoming Representative Tyler Lindholm. During his time in the legislature, in 2020, Lindholm voted for introduction of House Bill 200, “Reliable and dispatchable low-carbon energy standards.” The bill, which did pass, and was signed by Governor Mark Gordon, mandated carbon capture equipment on coal fired power plants in Wyoming.
According to a 2022 paper published in the Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, HB0200 would (and did) have significant impacts on the overall price of electricity.
“A unit-level study on retrofitting existing coal-fired plants to meet the mandate's emission limit estimated a 29% decrease in net unit efficiency. It would increase the levelized cost of electricity on fleet average by 237%. The CO2 avoidance cost was projected to range from $65 to $201 per metric ton.”
HB0200 was sponsored by, among others, Senator Ogden Driskill.
AFP’s Tyler Lindholm voted for the bill on introduction in the Wyoming House. Several legislators vying for re-election, one candidate for governor, and one Superintendent of Public Instruction candidate voted to pass HB0200. Among those are: Eric Barlow, Steve Harshman, Lloyd Larsen, Bob Nicholas, and Art Washut.
HB0200 really did increase electricity rates for consumers, and it forced dubious carbon capture mandates on energy producers. Another reality is that Tyler Lindholm, the head of Americans for Prosperity, was one of the perpetrators of it. As he put it in one of his campaign mailers against conservatives, he, Tyler Lindholm, was “Supporting legislation that would drive up energy costs, backing burdensome regulations that destroy energy jobs,” and “Standing with bureaucrats over families.”
The Point of It All
This example reflects a broader concern about AFP's campaign strategy in Wyoming. Rather than investing its substantial resources into explaining why voters should support particular candidates, many of AFP's mail pieces focus on mischaracterizing the voting record of conservatives. The result is a Republican primary increasingly dominated by attack advertising instead of thoughtful discussion about the issues most important to Wyoming.
Wyoming faces enormous challenges. The future of coal-fired electricity, federal land management, water rights, property taxes, mineral development, public education, and infrastructure all deserve careful discussion. Negative advertising pushes those conversations aside.
Perhaps the greatest irony is that Americans for Prosperity was founded on principles of empowering citizens and limiting government. Yet when campaign messaging relies on sweeping accusations instead of careful examination of legislation, it creates a far less informed voter. Worse, AFP’s Wyoming campaigning is creating a misinformed one. The real culprit in their allegations against conservative candidates is Americans for Prosperity itself.