Societies in late modernity are highly dependent upon electricity produced by technologies that use primary fuels implicated in ecological expropriations and degradations. Technological dependency and risk make electric generation a site of risk controversies. This qualitative study, using a framework grounded in Beck's risk society thesis, investigates the corporate communication strategies and risk definitions developed by Chesapeake Energy Corporation in the 2007 risk controversy surrounding the proposed Red Rock coal-fired plant in central Oklahoma. Data include newspaper articles, Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) documents, and multi-model advertisements from the Know Your Power (KYP) issue advocacy advertising campaign and associated knowyourpower.net website. Results of a content and discourse analysis indicate that Chesapeake engaged in communication strategies targeting both state and civil society actors in an effort to control the social construction of risk. Indirect representation through an unincorporated association before state regulators provided privileged access to expert knowledge's that supplied much of the information contained in the KYP issue advocacy advertising campaign. Chesapeake's risk definitions showed marked differences dependent upon the intended audience, yet all messages communicated Chesapeake's long-term goals of loosening government oversight of the public utility and creating an expanded market for natural gas. In the KYP campaign in particular, Chesapeake managed public participation in political-democracy by drawing upon highly stereotypical images of socially responsible action, suggesting appropriate responses to Red Rock, and structuring pathways of communication and message content for concerned individuals. Notably, public participation was directed away from the OCC and toward government actors far removed from the actual Red Rock proceedings. The implication of corporations as legal `persons' with rights to political speech is the expansion of corporate power and the restriction of public participation in the practice of political-democracy.