LINCOLN, Neb. (Nebraska Examiner) – Nebraskans are facing one of the most expensive elections in state history, including about $38 million raised and at least $32 million spent on campaigns involving six ballot measures.

Five campaigns have measures on the ballot, with the most expensive being the conflicting measures over whether to amend the Nebraska Constitution related to abortion. The three other efforts revolve around medical cannabis, paid sick leave and whether voters should repeal a recent state law that provides state funds to offset private K-12 school attendance costs.

Funds were also raised for two other campaigns, related to abortion (Choose Life Now) and taxes (EPIC Option), that didn’t collect enough signatures for the ballot.

As of Oct. 21, the five campaigns reported having a total of $2.21 million cash on hand. About $6.9 million came in just the past two weeks. Final campaign filings are due Jan. 14.

Abortion tops campaign finances

Among the ballot issues, abortion tops the fundraising and spending charts, with the two dueling campaigns accounting for a combined $25.74 million raised and $21.69 million spent by Friday.

The Protect Our Rights abortion-rights group behind Initiative Measure 439, is seeking to expand access to abortion up until the point of fetal viability as determined by a patient’s treating health care practitioner. The current scientific standard for viability is at about 22-24 weeks.

The group had raised $13.75 million and spent at least $10.46 million by Friday, receiving nearly $1.96 million in the past two weeks. About $38,000 was non-monetary donations, such as staff time or advertising.

The Protect Women and Children abortion-restrictions group behind Initiative Measure 434 is seeking to prohibit most abortions after the first trimester, with exceptions language for sexual assault, incest and the life of the mother. The Legislature would be allowed to restrict abortion in the first trimester further.

The group had raised $12 million and spent at least $11.23 million by Friday, receiving $3.91 million in the past two weeks. About $3.58 million was in non-monetary donations, largely advertising bought by Regent Jim Scheer of Norfolk ($3.25 million), He is running unopposed to a seat he was appointed to by Gov. Jim Pillen, the previous regent for that district.

Tanya Storer of Whitman, who is seeking a north-central Nebraska legislative seat against Tony Tangwall of Whitney, has also given about $145,000 in non-monetary donations to Protect Women and Children.

The two abortion-related campaigns have differed greatly in how they get their funds.

The abortion-rights campaign has gotten a large amount of funds from out-of-state so-called “dark money” groups that don’t disclose their donors.

Meanwhile, the abortion-restrictions campaign has largely relied upon Nebraska billionaires, including U.S. Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., and his mother, Marlene Ricketts, as well as Tom and Shawn Peed, with Sandhills Global.

Protect Our Rights

The top donors to Protect Our Rights, the abortion-rights amendment, are former New York City mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who donated $1.5 million in October, and Regent Barbara Weitz of Omaha, who personally financed $900,000 in donations.

The top group donations came from The Fairness Project, based in Washington, D.C., which gave $1.84 million, and Planned Parenthood through its Nebraska-based nonprofit and national “Action Fund,” at $1.6 million. Other top groups include the D.C.-based New Venture Fund, ($1 million); the ACLU of Nebraska ($975,000); Think Big America, founded by Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker ($850,000); and Nebraska Appleseed’s Action Fund ($702,000).

The Fairness Project donated to various ballot measure campaigns in Nebraska’s past three elections: to increase Nebraska’s minimum wage, curb predatory payday lending and expand Medicaid.

The group does not disclose its donors, but its website states that its focus is on running progressive policies in red states. New Venture Fund is managed by Arabella Advisors, which was founded by a former Clinton administration appointee. It oversees a hub of other left-leaning nonprofits that have received donations from billionaire George Soros in the past.

John Yoakum, a member of the Lower Platte South Natural Resources District, and Ashlei Spivey, a legislative candidate and founder of I Be Black Girl that supports Protect Our Rights, are also sponsoring ads for Protect Our Rights.

State law doesn’t preclude this method of ad buying, and federal campaign spending rules give candidates discounted airtime compared to ballot initiatives.

Protect Women and Children

The top donors to Protect Women and Children, which is backing the abortion-restrictions amendment, are Marlene Ricketts, at $4 million; Pete Ricketts, at $1.115 million; and the Peeds, at $1 million each.

A new political action committee, “Common Sense Nebraska,” which was formed Oct. 14, has helped raise funds for the campaign. Marlene Ricketts gave the group $3.5 million, and the Wisconsin-based nonprofit Catholic Vote gave $830,000.

The group distributed $687,000 to Beatrice Regent Rob Schafer’s re-election campaign committee, but not for his University of Nebraska race. Instead, Schafer used the funds to purchase ads for the abortion-restrictions campaign.

That was the same model for Storer and the $3.25 million from Scheer, a former speaker of the Nebraska Legislature. He created his regents committee Oct. 24.

Former Regent Howard Hawks of Omaha also provided a $25,000 donation in the past two weeks to the abortion restrictions campaign.

Pillen, who also supports the abortion-restrictions initiative, provided $645. He has a war chest of campaign funds but, as of Oct. 21, he hadn’t disbursed more than a handful of donations to support or fight against ballot measures or candidates this year.

Support Our Schools/Keep Kids First

The ballot issue prompting the next largest contributions is Referendum Measure 435, which seeks to repeal a law allowing an annual $10 million appropriation to the State Treasurer’s Office to distribute funds to families to help pay tuition at nonpublic K-12 schools, through Legislative Bill 1402.

LB 1402, passed this year, is the second bill facing a repeal by the Support Our Schools campaign, with roots in the Nebraska State Education Association, which represents teachers. The group also fought LB 753 in 2023, before its sponsor, State Sen. Lou Ann Linehan of Elkhorn, used LB 1402 to repeal its predecessor.

LB 753 created an annual $25 million tax credit program to raise funds for scholarships for students attending private schools. About $10 million was raised in 2024 before the law went away, so $15 million will go back to the state.

Now Support Our Schools is opposing the replacement bill, LB 1402.

In total, Support Our Schools has raised $7.42 million and spent $5.91 million in the past year and a half opposing both laws, according to campaign filings through Friday. That includes a $750,000 donation from the National Education Association made during the past two weeks.

Support Our Schools raised $1.84 million and spent $1.81 million by January 2024 to oppose the LB 753 tax credit-scholarship law.

This year, Support Our Schools raised $5.58 million and spent at least $4.09 million by Friday to oppose LB 1402.

Support Our Schools’ major sources of funding are the National Education Association ($4.33 million) and Nebraska State Education Association ($1.72 million).

Other top donors include the OpenSky Police Institute and “Vote For Schools,” a group for which little information is available. It is run by Dunixi Guereca, a legislative candidate and executive director of Stand For Schools, which also donated thousands to the repeal efforts.

New Venture Fund gave the campaign $99,000, and the Hopewell Fund, another nonprofit under Arabella Advisors, gave $90,000. The Colorado Education Association gave $2,500 and the Maine Education Association gave $1,000 to Support Our Schools.

Support Our Schools’ first repeal effort, against LB 753, faced opposition from Keep Kids First, a formal committee with ties to Linehan and the national American Federation for Children, founded by former U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.

By Friday, that committee had raised and spent a total of $1.52 million, but a majority was to oppose the 2023 repeal effort.

Keep Kids First raised $1.45 million and spent $1.41 million in 2023, to defend LB 753. In contrast, the committee raised $72,000 and spent $111,000 so far in 2024, in support of LB 1402.

Keep Kids First’s top donors were American Federation For Children ($561,500), Pillen ($100,000), Shawn and Tom Peed ($75,000 each) and Sen. Pete Ricketts ($25,000).

Paid Sick Leave for Nebraskans

Paid Sick Leave for Nebraskans, Initiative Measure 436, seeks to require businesses with 20 or fewer employees to fund at least five paid sick days each year for full-time employees. Larger businesses would need to annually fund at least seven sick days per full-time employee. An hour of sick leave would be earned after every 30 hours worked.

The paid sick leave campaign raised a total of $3.2 million, the majority in 2023, and spent at least $3.08 million by Friday. Nearly all funds raised came from organizations; $460 came from individuals.

By December 2023, the D.C.-based Sixteen Thirty Fund had donated $1.92 million. Like the New Venture Fund, it is managed by Arabella Advisors and doesn’t disclose its donors.

The campaign has also received $350,000 from the Open Society Policy Center, a principal financial arm founded by Soros, and about $280,000 from The Fairness Project.

The largest local donating group is Nebraska Appleseed — a local nonprofit focused on child welfare, immigration, health care and poverty — at about $472,000.

Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana

Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana, Initiative Measures 437 and 438, would allow up to five ounces of medical cannabis with a written recommendation from a health care practitioner while creating a Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission to oversee and regulate the new law. This is the third straight election cycle for the campaign.

By Friday, the campaign reported the smallest financial contributions of all others on the ballot, with $1.55 million raised and at least $1.53 million spent.

The Nebraska Families 4 Medical Cannabis nonprofit is the largest donor, at $717,000. Other top donors were Growing the Good Life, a local nonprofit ($222,600); the Wyoming-based Western Futures Fund ($200,000); and the New Venture Fund ($100,000).

Nebraska Families 4 Medical Cannabis has been around for almost a decade and has supported numerous legislative attempts involving medical marijuana. It financially supported Growing the Good Life, which in turn donated to Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana.

Little information is available about the Western Futures Fund. Its website says it “strengthens civil society and promotes responsible leadership in the Western United States.”

Ballot measure campaign finance, 2023-24

Protect Our Rights (abortion-rights amendment)

• Raised: $11.79 million
• Spent: $10.42 million
• Cash on hand: $1.06 million

Protect Women and Children (abortion restrictions amendment)

• Raised: $8.08 million
• Spent: $7.64 million
• Cash on hand: $439,000

Support Our Schools (opposing state funds for private school scholarships)

• Raised: $6.47 million
• Spent: $5.90 million
• Cash on hand: $572,000

Paid Sick Leave for Nebraskans

• Raised: $3.20 million
• Spent: $3.08 million
• Cash on hand: $116,000

Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana

• Raised: $1.51 million
• Spent: $1.49 million
• Cash on hand: $24,000

Keep Kids First (opposing Support Our Schools)

• Raised: $1.52 million
• Spent: $1.52 million
• Cash on hand: $2,800

EPIC Option (to replace all state taxes with a consumption tax and exempt groceries)

• Raised: $185,000
• Spent: $120,000
• Cash on hand: $65,000

No New Taxes (opposing EPIC Option)

• Raised: $101,000
• Spent: $78,000
• Cash on hand: $23,000

Choose Life Now (an abortion-restrictions “personhood” amendment)

• Raised: $27,000
• Spent: $26,000
• Cash on hand: $1,400

Source: Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission, through Oct. 21

Nebraska Examiner is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Nebraska Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Cate Folsom for questions: info@nebraskaexaminer.com. Follow Nebraska Examiner on Facebook and X.

Click here to subscribe to our 10/11 NOW daily digest and breaking news alerts delivered straight to your email inbox.

Copyright 2024 KOLN. All rights reserved.

BELLEVUE, Nebraska — Even as outside polling shows a competitive race for U.S. Senate in ruby-red Nebraska, Republican U.S. Sen. Deb Fischer remains adamant that her challenge from nonpartisan industrial mechanic Dan Osborn is a media-driven fabrication.

Fischer said reporters “wanted to see a race,” so they created one. Nebraskans, she said, know her record of getting results on national defense issues, funding roads, bridges and broadband and fighting profligate spending.

“He may put up these maps that he loves to show and ads and things that he’s been all over the state, and I supposedly have been nowhere,” she said of Osborn. “He’s being … disingenuous. I am always out in the state … listening to Nebraskans.”

Fischer’s frustrated tone belies her annoyance at needing help from local and national Republican groups to fend off the Omaha union leader. Osborn has had help from some national Democrats, Libertarians and local Legal Marijuana NOW Party members in his upstart campaign.

Fischer brings reinforcements

On the last weekend before Election Day on Tuesday, Fischer brought in reinforcements including Arkansas’ Sen. Tom Cotton, her seat neighbor on the Senate Armed Services Committee. The Army veteran contended during a Saturday visit that Fischer had seen a tough race coming all along.

Some Republicans have questioned whether Fischer’s campaign grew complacent, despite the GOP’s 2-to-1 advantage over Democrats and a significant bloc of nonpartisan voters.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee, which typically focuses spending in swing states, has taken the unusual step of investing millions to help Fischer in right-leaning Nebraska. 

On Sunday, Fischer rejoined a statewide barnstorming tour with Nebraska’s all-GOP congressional delegation aimed at shoring up Republican support for Fischer and 2nd District GOP U.S. Rep. Don Bacon, who typically faces close races in the Omaha area.

At a stop Sunday in Omaha, U.S. Rep. Mike Flood, R-Neb, a longtime friend of Fischer’s, described Osborn as a “fraud that’s being perpetrated on Nebraskans” and said the state’s voters needed to put him out of a job Tuesday.

He was referencing Osborn’s decision to pay himself from campaign funds during the race.

Osborn, at rallies of his own Sunday in Omaha and Lincoln, pledged to serve only two terms in the Senate if elected, calling term limits “an anti-corruption measure.” He reminded voters that Fischer had pledged the same and was running for a third term anyway.

Fischer told the Examiner that she learned the importance of seniority in the Senate after serving and that the state has benefited from her experience.

Fischer said there was nothing she would have done differently about her race. She largely ignored Osborn for months, sitting on a campaign war chest while he built unexpected momentum and raised funds. Fischer’s allies said she missed a chance to define her challenger early in ads.

“I’d like to know who they are,” Fischer said of her campaign’s Republican critics. 

Cotton defended her Saturday, saying, “Deb was working hard, taking no votes for granted, cautioning people about the playbook that (Senate Majority Leader) Chuck Schumer was running.”

Osborn’s rise

Osborn, an Omaha union leader who has drawn blue-collar crowds from Scottsbluff to Omaha, surprised many with his sharp TV ads and willingness to anger leaders in the Nebraska Democratic Party to reinforce his relative independence.

He courted the endorsement of Nebraska Democrats for months before saying immediately after the primary that he didn’t want any party’s backing. Some of his supporters also joined third parties and worked to prevent them from nominating other candidates for the ballot. 

Some of his supporters indicated this was an organized strategy. If third parties ran candidates on the general election ballot, that could split the vote more, instead of having a contest between Fischer and Osborn alone. 

Osborn has built his brand with support from organized labor and progressive donors who suggest that a nonpartisan label could make popular progressive policies more viable in red states.

Fischer has called Osborn’s campaign “a political science experiment,” a jab that Osborn has embraced. He has told supporters at many of his town hall stops that many of the best ideas in American governance started that way. 

“I’m just a worker for workers,” Osborn said. “There’s a lot of messaging out there, but at the end of the day, that’s why I’m here.”

Mistakes by Osborn supporters

Fischer has capitalized on late mistakes by some outside groups and people considering helping Osborn now that they’ve helped him make it a contest, including a super PAC that typically backs Democrats and Schumer.  

Fischer’s campaign pointed to a text from the left-leaning super PAC saying he would align with Democrats in the Senate if he is elected. Osborn has said he won’t caucus with either party if elected, a stance he reiterated in a recent sit-down with the Nebraska Examiner. 

He has said this will give him leverage enough in a divided Senate to get the committee assignments Nebraska needs. Fischer has called that naive and said he would not be treated well by either party. She also contends he would caucus with the left. 

“Her opponent, though, is a little bit different kind of guy than I’ve seen,” Cotton said of Osborn. “I’d say it’s a curious kind of independent who is using the Democrats’ fundraising machine to raise millions of dollars from out of state.”

Money flows in

Osborn has benefited from roughly $20 million in outside spending on his behalf, either supporting his bid or bashing Fischer, campaign finance forms show. GOP-aligned outside groups have come in with about $9 million for Fischer.

The two campaigns have each raised nearly $8 million, as well, record hauls for Fischer and for a first-time challenger not named Pete Ricketts, Nebraska’s junior senator who put millions of his own money into his first Senate race in the mid-2000s.

Osborn’s campaign in October reported raising $3.3 million, a record quarter for any modern Nebraska Senate race. Fischer raised nearly $1 million in the same period. Osborn’s campaign said he had raised another $3.1 million since the start of the fourth quarter. 

Much of that came as a slew of national and internal polls from both campaigns started showing a closer-than-expected race, and a handful showed Osborn with a slight lead. They showed Osborn receiving significant support from some Republicans. 

Fischer campaign responds

Fischer’s team cut an ad recently with former President Donald Trump. Her campaign started airing and sharing the ad digitally in conservative circles to help consolidate her support from the GOP base, which moved numbers her way.

Most local political observers still expect Fischer to win, perhaps by a wider margin than national polling shows. But some leave open the possibility of a close finish or even an upset, and that has motivated Democrats and nonpartisan voters who want to break the GOP hold on the state’s delegation.

Fischer is running ads on Osborn’s statements backing a legal path to citizenship for immigrant workers if they have lived in the U.S. for decades. The ads say he supports giving Social Security benefits to people who are in the country illegally, pointing to a recent interview he gave.

Osborn says the ads are twisting his words. He said he is talking about Nebraskans’ friends and neighbors who pay into Social Security through their paychecks and get no benefit. They’ve helped shore up the system for other workers and should have a legal path to citizenship, he said.

“It’s the fact that our immigration system is broken,” Osborn said. “People that have been living here, working here, that are not criminals, they’ve raised families in communities. It’s fixing the immigration system so they can get legal status.”

Osborn talks issues

Osborn, a Navy veteran, said Fischer ran for the Senate saying she was going to fix the immigration system and then was part of the group that tanked a bipartisan immigration bill because Trump urged them to do so. 

Dan Osborn, nonpartisan

“We’ve got to start somewhere,” Osborn said. “If it fell short, it fell short. But at least the American people will know that Congress is doing something. This is one of the most ineffective Congresses in history.”

He says he would support policies that make it easier for people to join unions and to advocate for better pay and benefits. He says he won’t take special interest dollars and won’t let donors influence his decisions.

He touts his union support from the AFL-CIO and the United Auto Workers, which held a major rally for him in Lincoln that turned heads when Republican State Sen. Mike McDonnell, another Omaha labor leader, joined him on stage and applauded his bid.

Fischer pushes back on rancher attack ad

Fischer has some union support as well, particularly from public safety unions representing state and local police officers and troopers and firefighters and paramedics. She also amplifies her backing from farm and ranching groups.

U.S. Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb.

Fischer took issue with Osborn’s push to call her a “fake rancher.” Her family owns a ranch near Valentine, Nebraska, where she was a school board member.

Her campaign rallied last week in Herman, Nebraska, with the Nebraska Farm Bureau, the Nebraska Cattlemen and a number of her farm and ranch supporters who argued that she has listened to their needs and is a voice they want on the farm bill.

Both candidates sat down this spring with the Examiner’s political podcast, Picking Corn, and talked about a number of issues, including the need to support allies like Israel and Ukraine with American weapons. 

Both said they want to protect American service members. Fischer talked again this weekend about how she worked with Bacon to secure funding for a new runway at Offutt Air Force Base, as well as flood repairs and flood-fighting levees.

Both Fischer and Osborn said they want the next farm bill to include improved versions of crop insurance. 

Osborn has talked about the need to raise the cap on income subject to the Social Security tax, so millionaires and billionaires would pay more into the program. Fischer has said she would cut the federal tax on Social Security benefits.

Douglas County Commissioner Jim Cavanaugh, a Democrat, said Osborn was the right candidate “to preserve and improve Social Security” and criticized Fischer for previously discussing the potential of raising the Social Security retirement age for younger workers.

Fischer has said that retirees rely on the program and that it needs to be protected.

Bacon and Fischer’s other defenders repeated a hook from her stump speech, that Fischer is a work horse and not a show horse.

Osborn has said her campaign is kicking a dead horse and needs to be put out to pasture. 

Nebraska football’s game against UCLA was the worst of the Matt Rhule era.

Two weeks ago, the Indiana loss was bad, but the Hoosiers are a good football team that could play for a Big Ten title. While UCLA is a decent team with three wins, they’re unlikely to make a bowl game. Nebraska’s performance against Ohio State suggested they could win all their remaining games. The UCLA game has me questioning whether the Huskers will even make it to a bowl.

This game has shaken my previously unwavering faith in Rhule’s direction for the program. The current staff is running out of time to prove it can lead Nebraska football back to prominence, and tough decisions will almost certainly be needed in December.

The late-down performance told the story of this game. A traditional box score shows that the Huskers “won” this aspect of the game, converting 9-of-17 third downs versus UCLA’s 6-of-13. The Bruins had a massive advantage in terms of EPA: 6.77 vs. the Huskers’ -8.01. The Blackshirts were able to put Bruins quarterback Ethan Garbers in challenging third-down situations, requiring him to gain an average of 6.4 yards. The Bruins made easy work of that distance, averaging 9.8 yards per play on third down. In contrast, the Huskers managed just 3.1 yards per play on third down.

UCLA’s costly mental mistakes masked a subpar performance by the Huskers’ offense. Nebraska only scored points on drives when UCLA was called for an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. Those three penalties alone accounted for 9.48 EPA in Nebraska’s favor. This game was an infamous one-score loss thanks to UCLA’s careless mistakes.

I will give some credit to the playcalling in this game. Nebraska didn’t call many pass plays that targeted a player near the line of scrimmage. Raiola’s 40-yard pass to Jacory Barney was the Huskers’ biggest play outside of the UCLA penalty that extended that drive a few plays earlier. I loved the quick-hitting runs with Dowdell lined up as a fullback. Lining up Heinrich Haarberg at running back is also a unique wrinkle that could set up a big play in a future game.

However, rolling Raiola out to his left on a crucial fourth-and-goal at the five-yard line baffled me. The rollout put Raiola in an awkward position to throw. Carter Nelson’s route likely would have left him short of the end zone, even if the pass had been completed. Neither Isaiah Neyor nor Jahmal Banks were on the field for that play. I’d like to see one of them given the opportunity to make a play or draw a penalty rather than relying on two true freshmen to execute a challenging play to perfection.

Nebraska also lacked urgency during the fourth quarter. The play clock would frequently run for 30 seconds before Nebraska snapped the ball. I had this concern at the end of the first half against Illinois, but the Huskers still managed to score, giving them a halftime lead against the Illini. NU offensive coordinator Marcus Satterfield could help Raiola make reads at the line of scrimmage if the offense was set before the headset turns off with 15 seconds left on the play clock.

This game was a missed opportunity for Nebraska. Against Ohio State, special teams and the defense took a giant leap forward compared to the Indiana game. Both units took a step back this week, which is rightfully concerning to fans wanting to see a definite improvement in year two under Rhule.

The Huskers have three games to change the narrative of this season, but their early-season concerns are becoming this team’s tragic flaws later in the year.

MORE: Nebraska Volleyball Libero Moves Up All-Time Digs Chart In Sweep Of Northwestern

MORE: UCLA Football’s DeShaun Foster: Bruins Wanted to Break Dylan Raiola’s Rhythm

MORE: Bruins Breakout Big in the Beginning and Burst Huskers Bowl Bubble

MORE: Tad Stryker: Nebraska Fails Physicality Test

MORE: Adam Carriker Gut Reaction: UCLA 27, Nebraska 20

Stay up to date on all things Huskers by bookmarking Nebraska Cornhuskers On SI, subscribing to HuskerMax on YouTube, and visiting HuskerMax.com daily.