As voters in Nebraska head to the polls, Dan Osborn, an upstart independent challenger to Republican Sen. Deb Fischer, has a chance to pull off the most shocking upset of the 2024 campaign. According to a recent New York Times poll, he is a mere 2 points behind Fischer, and other surveys show him within striking distance.

If he wins, he could help keep the Senate out of Republican control. Yet national Democrats want nothing to do with Osborn — and that’s just fine with him. In what might be the most fascinating race this year, Osborn has run a truly independent campaign against a Republican incumbent — and steadfastly distanced himself from the Democratic Party.

The reason isn’t hard to figure out. As Ari Kohen, a political science professor at the University of Nebraska, told me, “If Dan were a Democrat, he’d be losing by 20 points.”

Barry Rubin, president of Heartland Strategy Group and former executive director of the Nebraska Democratic Party, shares Kohen’s view. A “D” next to the candidate’s name is a “Scarlet Letter in the western part of the state,” where Republicans traditionally dominate, says Rubin.

Osborn has steadfastly refused to say which party he would caucus with if elected. But if the Senate is 50 Republicans to 49 Democrats after Election Day (and Democrats win the White House), Osborn could be the deciding vote on Senate control — and, in short measure, the most powerful politician in Washington. 

Due to the state’s GOP lean and the presence of former President Donald Trump at the top of the ticket, the smart money is on Fischer to pull out a win. But Osborn’s remarkable campaign in a consistently Republican state offers a tantalizing possibility for Democrats: Has he cracked the code for how a progressive candidate can run a competitive race in red-state America?

Because while Osborn has eschewed Democratic support, he is running on a progressive policy platform heavy on economic populism. In September, Trump endorsed Fischer and called Osborn “a Bernie Sanders Democrat” — a claim that, in many respects, isn’t far off.  

On his campaign website, Osborn attacks “private equity companies,” calls for ending “subsidies to super-profitable pharmaceutical companies” and vows to protect Social Security. He rails against the “millionaire and billionaire class that are inoculated from the very laws that they make” and recently told The New York Times, “We’re at the apex of a corporate-run government.’’

He also supports raising the minimum wage and corporate taxes and has made passing the PRO Act, a top priority of labor unions, a centerpiece of his policy agenda. 

The latter priority is no surprise given Osborn’s biography. Before entering politics, he was an industrial mechanic at Kellogg’s cereal company, where he led a 2021 strike against the corporate conglomerate (he was fired in 2023 in a move that he has called retaliation).

Osborn regularly portrays Fischer as a tool of her corporate donors, calling her a “creature of the D.C. swamp.” The incumbent “has taken so much corporate cash,” says one Osborn ad, that “she should wear patches, like NASCAR.”

Since he’s running in a state that Trump won by 19 points in 2020, Osborn isn’t shy about appealing to the former president’s voters. He’s run an ad in which ordinary Nebraskans say they are voting for Donald Trump “with one finger” and Dan Osborn with the other. In the same ad, he says Fischer has more in common with Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump. He even accuses Fischer of “stabbing Trump in the back” after she called for him to exit the 2016 race after the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape.

But looking under the hood of his campaign, it’s hard to find a single issue on which Osborn openly sides with Republicans. For example, he’s called for strengthening border security and is even running an ad that says his background as an industrial welder could come in handy in building Trump’s border wall. However, like Vice President Kamala Harris, he has criticized his Republican rival for failing to support the immigration deal negotiated by Republican Sen. James Lankford. 

On abortion, he says he opposes the procedure but believes it should be legal and has called for codifying Roe v. Wade in federal law. 

In a statement that would warm the heart of a social libertarian, Osborn recently said at a campaign event, “I don’t believe it’s my place or the government’s place to tell people when they should or shouldn’t start families, and that includes I.V.F. and contraceptives.” Even on the issue of guns, which usually trips up Democrats in red states like Nebraska, Osborn has said he supports the Second Amendment but also backs “reasonable gun safety measures.”

While Osborn’s unique style of politics has paid dividends, he has also benefited from Fischer’s missteps. Even after two terms in the Senate, she isn’t particularly well-known in the state and is one of the most unpopular senators in the country. For most of the campaign, Fischer ignored Osborn, a decision that backfired badly. “The Osborn campaign has basically been campaigning for a year unchecked by Fischer,” says Rubin. “He’s held hundreds of public events, and he was able to define himself before Fischer could.” When she finally started running ads against him, it had the perverse effect of raising Osborn’s profile further.

While her fellow Republican Pete Ricketts (running to complete former Sen. Ben Sasse’s term) is nearly 20 points ahead of his Democratic rival, national Republicans have been forced to plunge money into the state to rescue Fischer.

Osborn has also benefited from the quirkiness of Nebraska’s politics. Though the state is currently considered solidly Republican, Nebraska has a long tradition of nonpartisanship. Its unicameral state Legislature (the only one in the country) is nonpartisan, as candidates don’t run for office under party monikers. And it wasn’t long ago that Democrats were competitive in the Cornhusker State. As recently as 2012 the state was represented in the Senate by Democrat Ben Nelson — and he succeeded Democrat Bob Kerrey, who served two terms as senator. 

But like much of red-state America, the election of Barack Obama in 2008 and the GOP’s takeover by more extreme voices (first the tea party and then Trump’s MAGA), Democrats were simply unable to compete in states dominated by Republicans. 

Osborn’s success is a direct result of his running as a true independent — and separating himself from the cultural and social baggage of being a Democrat in a red state like Nebraska. Not surprisingly, Fischer has tried to paint him as a secret Democrat, but it’s a hard sell when Osborn has never been a member of the Democratic Party. “He’s an honest to God non-partisan,” says Kohen. “You can’t pin him down on being a party person. That makes him very unique.” 

Democrats have done their part to respect Osborn’s independence. Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan, the head of the Senate Democrats’ campaign committee, recently said Democrats aren’t engaging in Nebraska “in any shape or form,” and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., hasn’t spoken to the upstart candidate. The state’s Democratic Party chairwoman even criticized Osborn as “inauthentic” and compared him to Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, I-Ariz.

Nonetheless, Osborn’s potential path to victory can give Democrats hope. “The message of this race is that their policy agenda can have resonance in red-state America,” says Kohen. “If you disconnect issues from party, this is what you end up getting.” 

Rubin agrees that while Osborn’s success is a bit of a “perfect storm,” his success in making this race competitive “can be a model for other states.” 

“There are a lot of people in the middle” who aren’t represented by either party,” says Rubin. “For any non-MAGA Republican, Osborn is a good fit.” We’ll have to see whether it’s enough to prevail on Tuesday night, but if Osborn somehow wins, the political earthquake could reshape American politics. 

Dr. Rob Zatechka analyzes a couple of UCLA’s rushing plays from Nebraska’s loss Saturday to the Bruins in Lincoln. Final score, 27-20.

Last week, Rob predicted the Huskers might have some trouble stopping the UCLA running game and O-line, and sure enough the Doc knew his stuff. The Bruins are dead last in the FBS in rushing offense, and yet the Huskers gave up 139 yards on the ground, more than double UCLA’s average coming into the game.

Hit the play button above to watch Dr. Rob’s analysis.

MORE: Nebraska Feels Further Away Than Ever After Loss to UCLA

MORE: QB Grade: Nebraska’s Dylan Raiola vs. UCLA

MORE: Huskers Today: November 4, 2024

MORE: Nebraska-USC Game Gets 3 p.m. CST Kickoff

MORE: Coach Tim Miles Stops by SMQ to Talk Bob & Jay Off the Ledge After Nebraska Football’s UCLA Debacle

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

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.