Connect with us

Politics

Nebraska Senate candidate restructures campaign after complaint over payments to family: report

Published

on

Nebraska Senate candidate restructures campaign after complaint over payments to family: report

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

U.S. Senate candidate in Nebraska Dan Osborn is reportedly restructuring his campaign following complaints he has been improperly steering funds for personal use to his relatives, including his wife, who, a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleges received funds illegally via the Osborn campaign, a web of political action committees and consulting firms. 

Advertisement

While paying family members is not illegal under federal election law, there are certain guidelines that must be followed, including that the services rendered are bona fide campaign services, and that they are paid at fair-market value. Fox News Digital reported last month that conservative watchdog Americans for Public Trust filed a complaint with federal election officials alleging the Osborn campaign and two political action committees were engaging in an illegal “scheme” to pay nearly half-a-dozen of his relatives. 

Osborn’s wife was among the relatives at the center of the complaint, having been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars from her husband’s campaigns and his affiliated PACs, both directly and via two political consulting firms she was working for, or had an ownership stake in, according to the complaint. But, on Thursday, Osborn and his wife informed the Omaha-World Herald that she would be stepping away from her roles with the two consulting firms and would be joining her husband’s campaign as its full-time operations manager. 

U.S. Senate candidate Dan Osborn speaks during his campaign stop at Sly’s Family Bar and Grill in Neligh, Neb. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)

FEDERAL ELECTION COMPLAINT ALLEGES AOC MISUSED CAMPAIGN FUNDS FOR PSYCHIATRIST SERVICES

“I am not going to let Pete and his cronies dictate who runs my campaign,” Osborn told the Omaha-World Herald. “No one works harder than my wife. Along with running our household and raising our kids, she has been instrumental in running my campaign.” 

Advertisement

In a statement to Fox News Digital, campaign spokesperson John Dolan called the concerns about Osborn’s campaign spending “a joke.”

“Why is a billionaire like Pete Ricketts so afraid of a mechanic?” Dolan questioned, referring to incumbent GOP Nebraska Sen. Pete Ricketts, whom Osborn is challenging. “Ricketts and his allies are doing what they always do: throwing mud to distract voters from the fact that they’re getting rich while bankrupting the country.”

Osborn has been steadfast that his wife, reportedly a former bar manager, has been an instrumental part of his campaign and that payments have been in line with fair-market value rates. In some cases, Megan has gotten money directly from her husband’s campaign, and in other cases she has received it from two firms, one called Independent Campaigns LLC, which Megan has a one-third ownership stake in, and Dark Forest LLC, which official candidate disclosures show Megan gets compensation from. The firms were being paid for campaign services as well.

Just two days after Independent Campaigns was set up, Osborn’s Working Class Heroes Fund (WCHF) made its first $50,000 payment to the firm, according to the Lincoln-Journal Star. Per Americans for Public Trust’s FEC complaint, Independent Campaigns has received nearly $200,000 from Osborn’s principal campaign, WCHF and another PAC called the League of Labor Voters (LLV), which Americans for Public Trust also alleges is controlled by Osborn.

In total, per the Americans for Public Trust complaint letter, Osborn’s wife has been able to rake in close to $300,000 for herself for things like “strategy consulting” and work reimbursements.

Advertisement

OMAR CALLS GOP PROBE INTO HUSBAND’S $30M BUSINESS SURGE A ‘POLITICAL STUNT’ AS RECORDS DEADLINE PASSES

Meanwhile, the complaint against Osborn’s campaign also includes payments made to two of Osborn’s sisters-in-law, his brother-in-law and his daughter.

Placards for U.S. Senate candidate Dan Osborn are seen as he speaks during his campaign stop at the Handlebend coffee shop in O’Neill, Neb. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Osborn’s daughter, Georgia, a part-time dancer who Osborn says still needs help paying her bills, was given $4,200 from Osborn’s first failed campaign that was defunct at the time. The payment came between when Osborn’s first 2024 campaign lost and before launching his 2026 bid. The money was for “assistant services” from the then-dormant campaign.

“Perhaps the Osborn family is teeming with previously undiscovered, dynastic political talent, akin to the Kennedys or Roosevelts,” states the Americans for Public Trust complaint to the FEC. “Or perhaps Mr. Osborn has realized his ability to funnel large amounts of unchecked campaign cash to his own family.”

Advertisement

Independent Senate candidate Dan Osborn chats with attendees after speaking during his campaign stop at the Handlebend coffee shop in O’Neill, Neb., on Oct. 14, 2024. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

According to the Omaha-World Herald, Osborn’s wife will not only no longer be working for the consulting firms she was with previously, but would also be divesting her stake in Independent Campaigns. The outlet also reported that Osborn and his wife indicated she would be paid a salary of $8,000 per month, which is slightly lower than the $9,000 per month that Osborn said his wife was making from multiple income sources prior to beginning work with her husband’s first failed campaign in 2024.

“Dan Osborn only restructured how he pays his wife after we filed a complaint with the FEC that he was running afoul of campaign finance laws,” Caitlin Sutherland, executive director of Americans for Public Trust, told Fox News Digital on Friday. “However, questions still remain regarding his payments to his daughter, his brother-in-law, and two sisters-in-law, and his control over two federal PACs. Rest assured, Osborn may have changed tactics, but he isn’t off the hook in his attempt to funnel campaign cash to his entire family.”

Osborn, who is running as an Independent, has also been criticized for his affiliations with Democrats despite committing to not caucusing with either major party if elected. Osborn is looking to unseat incumbent Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., after losing his 2024 challenge against Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb. 

Advertisement

Politics

G.O.P. Congress Struggles to Do the Basics Amid Party Infighting

Published

on

G.O.P. Congress Struggles to Do the Basics Amid Party Infighting

Representative Tom Cole, the Oklahoma Republican who leads the Appropriations Committee and is a longtime party political strategist, observed on Wednesday that congressional majorities are typically lost either through overreach or dysfunction.

Congressional Republicans seem to be opting for the latter.

“Right now we don’t look as functional as we need to look,” Mr. Cole acknowledged as the House and Senate strained to get some of their most basic work done in the face of bitter internal divisions and increased finger-pointing among Republicans.

With midterm elections approaching and control of both chambers at real risk, Republicans are struggling to pass essential legislation, let alone the political messaging bills typical of the months running up to Election Day.

The House floor was frozen on Tuesday and ground to a standstill for several hours on Wednesday as Republican leaders pleaded for votes and cut side deals. Two of those hours were spent laboring to win a preliminary vote to begin debate on a series of bills — what used to be considered a routine step until the current Republican majority assumed power and rank-and-file lawmakers, noting their party’s vanishingly slim margin of control, latched on to such moments as leverage.

Advertisement

Now the routine step has become an extraordinary travail for Speaker Mike Johnson, who is constantly toiling to please various Republican factions, cognizant that a misstep, or any reliance on Democratic votes to pass bills, could draw a challenge that could cost him his job.

“We live in a period where leaders are afraid of their members, and members are afraid of their voters,” said Mr. Cole.

On Wednesday, heated discussions were prevalent on the Republican side of the aisle. Lawmakers shouted at each other across the House floor. Mr. Johnson huddled with holdouts and defectors, beseeching them to get in line. Deals were cut, then reneged on and renegotiated, and even the G.O.P. budget plan — normally a unifying measure — stalled for more than five hours as unrelated disputes were hashed out behind closed doors.

“Guys, this is why they say lawmaking is like watching sausage be made,” a beleaguered Mr. Johnson told reporters at the Capitol on Wednesday evening.

Some Republicans even accused their colleagues of being in the pocket of the pesticide industry — the sort of pointed critique usually aimed at members of the opposing party if made at all, since lawmakers do not like to remind voters about the influence of political contributions.

Advertisement

Other Republicans shrugged off the escalating political combat as the way business is done these days.

“It should be a fist fight on everything,” said Representative Tim Burchett, Republican of Tennessee. “It shouldn’t be easy.”

But the congressional temperature was rising high enough that one former Republican House member from Texas, Mayra Flores, urged her ex-colleagues to take it behind closed doors.

“There is no reason to turn every issue into a public spectacle online,” Ms. Flores wrote on X, saying she was “honestly embarrassed” by the conduct of some of her former colleagues. “The country is facing real challenges, and constant public infighting only makes the work harder.”

Republican leaders, trying to break a logjam that threatened to derail their entire immediate agenda, relented on Wednesday and agreed to rework a major farm policy measure that is historically one of the more popular bills before Congress. But its path remained unclear because of a dispute over ethanol tax credits and opposition from a handful of Republican lawmakers who opposed a liability shield for pesticide producers that has outraged the Make America Healthy Again movement.

Advertisement

“This is causing cancer and it is making people sick,” Representative Anna Paulina Luna, Republican of Florida, said as she urged reporters to investigate members of the Agriculture Committee and the donations they get from pesticide producers.

After sundown, Republicans got stuck on the budget resolution providing the framework for $70 billion in funding for President Trump’s immigration crackdown as they tried to quell protests over Mr. Johnson’s handling of the farm bill. The budget outline finally passed on a party-line vote, but it was a mark of the G.O.P. difficulties that a surge of money for tough immigration enforcement embraced by nearly all Republicans was almost sidelined by the farm bill furor.

The House voted to extend a surveillance law that the intelligence community says is critical to identifying potential terrorist attacks, but the Senate almost immediately said the House bill was unacceptable and that it would be sending back an alternative with barely 24 hours left before the statute was set to lapse.

What lawmakers were not talking about was how to break loose bipartisan legislation, passed in the Senate but stalled in the House, that would fund most of the Department of Homeland Security after a more than 70-day shutdown, as the administration warned that funding for paying workers was again about to run out.

Top House Republicans blamed Senate Republican leaders for mishandling the legislation and then trying to jam it down the throat of the House. They said the fact that the measure explicitly says that “zero” dollars should be expended for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and border patrol is untenable for some Republicans, who fear they could be attacked for defunding the police.

Advertisement

Mr. Cole said the House wants changes, which could again slow the bill in the Senate.

“All of this is created by bad management in the Senate and by not being open and transparent with us in the House,” he said.

But Senate Republicans believe they had a deal with Mr. Johnson to pass the spending bill weeks ago, when he publicly endorsed it.

The standoff has tested the patience of the usually even-tempered Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota and the majority leader, who reacted testily this week when Mr. Johnson suggested that his chamber wanted unspecified modifications.

“You’d have to figure out what they were doing and whether or not it materially affects in any way the bill that we passed not once, but twice, by unanimous consent,” Mr. Thune said, noting that he and Mr. Johnson jointly announced an agreement to pass the funding legislation on April 1, and that it still had not reached the House floor.

Advertisement

Should it get there, it would likely attract sufficient Democratic support to offset any Republican defections. But that is one of the reasons Mr. Johnson has been reluctant to move forward, since turning to Democrats to help pass legislation can upset his right wing and lead to a challenge to his leadership.

As he assessed the situation, Mr. Cole said that splintered Republicans had a clear choice: put aside their differences and move ahead, or face the consequences.

“You can either be part of a functional majority and get almost everything you want,” he said, “or you can hold out and get nothing and be in the minority next time.”

Megan Mineiro and Michael Gold contributed reporting.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

House Republicans unlock reconciliation process to fund ICE and Border Patrol without Democrats

Published

on

House Republicans unlock reconciliation process to fund ICE and Border Patrol without Democrats

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The House of Representatives approved a budget blueprint funding immigration enforcement for the rest of President Donald Trump’s term over Democrats’ fierce objections on Wednesday.

Lawmakers voted 215-211 along party lines to take a critical step toward ending the record-breaking Department of Homeland Security funding lapse that began on Feb. 14.

Rep. Kevin Kiley, I-Calif., who caucuses with Republicans, voted present. House Democrats united in opposition to the immigration enforcement measure while every Republican present voted in support.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., could spare just a handful of defections with Republicans’ slim majority.

Advertisement

REPUBLICANS CAN FUND ICE FOR AN ENTIRE DECADE WITHOUT A SINGLE DEM VOTE: SEN CRUZ

ICE agents depart the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building on Feb. 4, 2026, in Minneapolis. (John Moore/Getty Images)

The House’s approval of the Senate-passed budget framework unlocks the partisan budget reconciliation process, which Republicans are using to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection without support from congressional Democrats.

Trump has given Republicans a June 1 deadline to send a budget reconciliation bill to his desk, giving GOP leadership little room for error.

“We have a real sense of urgency about getting this done,” Johnson told Fox News Wednesday.

Advertisement

The successful vote came after more than a dozen GOP lawmakers ranging from conservatives to farm-state and Midwestern Republicans withheld their votes over concerns unrelated to the budget framework.

Republican leadership held the vote open for more than five hours to win over the numerous holdouts and six GOP lawmakers who voted “no” before flipping to “yes.”

Those lawmakers included Reps. Max Miller, R-Ohio, Andy Harris, R-Md., Victoria Spartz, R-Ind., Harriet Hageman, R-Wyo., Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., and Michael Cloud, R-Texas.

“This is why they say lawmaking is like watching sausage be made,” Johnson told reporters Wednesday. “That’s what this is, but we’ll get it done.” 

The budget resolution teeing up funding for Trump’s immigration agenda is just one piece of Republicans’ DHS funding strategy.

Advertisement

SENATE BORDER BUDGET TRIUMPHS AFTER ALL-NIGHT SESSION WHILE TRUMP-BACKED HOUSE BILL LAGS

House GOP leadership has not specified when it plans to take up a Senate-passed measure funding the rest of the department.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., agreed on a two-track approach to fund DHS by steering around Democratic opposition weeks ago. But Johnson has so far declined to put the Senate’s partial DHS bill on the House floor over concerns that it zeroes out funding for immigration enforcement. 

Johnson said earlier this week that some “modifications” to the measure may be necessary but has not gone into detail about specific changes.

The White House on Tuesday sent Hill offices an internal memo, obtained by Fox News Digital, urging passage of the Senate’s partial DHS bill, raising the pressure on Johnson to act.

Advertisement

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., successfully steered a budget blueprint through the House of Representatives teeing up three years of funding for President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda on Wednesday. (Valerie Plesch/Bloomberg)

Many rank-and-file House Republicans want ICE and the Border Patrol funded before the rest of the department, which could mean a delay for several more weeks.

“I think that there’s a serious problem with the bill in that it zeroes out, ICE and CBP,” Rep. Eric Burlison, a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, told Fox News. “It’s one thing to not do the funding, but it’s a whole other thing to put zeros in the bill.”

“I know that the speaker’s working on making sure that we have all the assurances and even maybe the cash in hand in terms of reconciliation being wrapped up, finalized before we take the 95% of the rest of Homeland Security,” House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, said.

Meanwhile, the White House is warning that it will be short on funds to pay the department’s hundreds of thousands of employees beginning in May.

Advertisement

“If this funding is exhausted, the Administration will be unable to pay DHS personnel beginning in May, which will once again unleash havoc on air travel, leave critical law enforcement officers—including our brave Secret Service agents—and the Coast Guard without paychecks, and jeopardize national security,” the White House memo published Tuesday states.

House Republicans’ approval of the Senate blueprint also effectively shuts the door on adding other GOP priorities to the budget package. Some GOP lawmakers had floated adding affordability-focused provisions, defense supplemental funding and the SAVE America Act to the bill.

House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, said Wednesday that the House of Representatives is unlikely to pass the Senate’s partial DHS bill until more progress is made toward funding immigration enforcement. (Alex Wroblewski/Bloomberg)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

GOP leadership had argued for weeks that a larger bill risked derailing the budget reconciliation process.

Advertisement

“We’re focused on funding Homeland Security and stopping the Democrat shutdown and, in particular, using reconciliation to fund ICE and CBP because Democrats refused to fund it,” Arrington said. “Everything else is not germane to this conversation.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Cole Allen case reveals Secret Service failures that could have led to tragedy at D.C. gala

Published

on

Cole Allen case reveals Secret Service failures that could have led to tragedy at D.C. gala

According to Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche and other top administration officials, the U.S. Secret Service did a fine job protecting President Trump and Cabinet members from the gunman who breached the White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner Saturday.

“That horrible act was stopped because of the courage and professionalism of law enforcement — the officers who responded without hesitation and did their jobs as they were trained to do,” Blanche said Monday.

However, according to a detailed accounting filed Wednesday by federal prosecutors in the criminal case against suspect Cole Tomas Allen, the performance of the nation’s preeminent protection agency was marred by inattentiveness and misfires and saved by “extraordinary good fortune” and the gunman falling to the ground.

“The defendant, armed with a 12-gauge shotgun, a .38 caliber pistol, two knives, four daggers, and enough ammunition to take dozens of lives, was apprehended by [Secret Service] officers mere feet away from the ballroom where his primary target was located, along with other members of the Cabinet,” prosecutors wrote Wednesday, in a filing arguing for Allen to be held in detention pending trial on one charge of trying to kill the president and two firearms charges.

Contradicting a prior claim by Blanche that officers had “promptly tackled and detained” Allen, prosecutors wrote that the 31-year-old tutor from Torrance simply “fell to the ground” after blowing past a team of agents just two open flights of stairs from the ballroom.

Advertisement

They wrote that one officer fired at Allen five times, but never hit him.

The same officer saw Allen fire his shotgun “in the direction of the stairs leading down to the ballroom,” prosecutors wrote, and officers later discovered “one spent cartridge in the barrel and eight unfired cartridges in the magazine tube.”

Prosecutors said nothing about the Secret Service officer who Blanche said was shot in his ballistic vest during the incident — adding to speculation that the officer may have been shot not by Allen, but by a fellow officer, or not at all.

Agency critiqued before

In all, the court filing brought further into focus a chaotic Secret Service response that appeared flawed from the start, including in a video Trump posted shortly after the incident in which agents appeared to be idling around an unobstructed entrance when Allen ran past them.

It added to concerns that law enforcement, security experts and members of Congress had raised about the performance of an agency that has been repeatedly called on to improve after previous attempts on Trump’s life. At a 2024 campaign rally in Butler, Pa., a gunman fired a bullet that grazed Trump’s ear, and that same year, another assailant prepared to shoot him from the unsecured perimeter of a Florida golf course.

Advertisement

Robert D’Amico, a former FBI deputy chief of operations for hostage rescue teams who is now a security consultant, said the security failures he saw in the Secret Service’s preparation for Saturday’s dinner — including its failure to set up basic barriers to prevent people from sprinting into the secured area — were stunning, especially given the past threats and the fact the nation is at war with Iran.

“It’s for a person like Trump, who’s had two assassination attempts before and is at war with Iran, which has terrorist training and proxies up, and you still don’t have the basics?” D’Amico said. “It’s unfathomable.”

Other concerns have been voiced by members of Congress, including Republicans.

The House Oversight Committee has requested a briefing from the Secret Service, and Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has called for a hearing before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which also investigated the Butler incident.

In a letter urging the hearing, Hawley said the latest incident “raises questions about presidential security arrangements, potential resource needs, and the degree to which reforms previously proposed by Congress have been adopted.”

Advertisement

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told Fox News that from “a layman’s perspective,” event security “looked a little lax in terms of getting into the building,” and that it “doesn’t sound like it was sufficient.”

Sean M. Curran, director of the Secret Service, has been on Capitol Hill in recent days briefing lawmakers.

He told CBS News that agents did a “great job,” but also that the incident remains under review. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has said that White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles would be leading discussions on potential updates to Secret Service plans for securing the president.

Fear of graver threats

Blanche has argued that proof of the Secret Service’s effectiveness at the press gala was in the result: Allen was stopped, Trump and other officials were unharmed and no one was killed, despite Allen’s alleged intent.

However, the concerns being raised have to do with the vulnerabilities that were exposed as much as those that were exploited.

Advertisement

Because the dinner was not designated a major “national special security event” — such as a political convention — there were no trained counterassault agents on standby to prevent a breach or to take down a person with a weapon, officials have said.

Law enforcement experts said that was clearly a mistake given so many top officials — Trump, Johnson, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, among others — were in the room.

Such a gathering could have been targeted by foreign adversaries or others with far more experience, less regard for human life and much greater firepower than Allen, experts said.

“Most of my military friends are all saying the same thing,” said D’Amico, who is also a former infantry platoon commander in the U.S. Marines. “If you had had a team of three or four [gunmen], they would have gotten to [Trump].’”

In the initial criminal complaint against Allen, prosecutors included the text of an email Allen sent to family just as he was preparing to rush the security perimeter, in which he allegedly wrote that he had chosen to use buckshot in order to “minimize casualties” and prevent bystanders from being wounded by more powerful bullets penetrating walls.

Advertisement

He also allegedly wrote that he was willing to “go through most everyone” at the event to get to top administration officials, but that guests and hotel staff were “not targets at all.”

In Wednesday’s filing, prosecutors describe Allen’s actions as “premeditated, violent, and calculated to cause death,” and say he was “laden with weapons” as he breached security. But none of those weapons included assault-style rifles that can fire bullets rapidly and have been used to kill civilians in mass shootings across the country for years.

The filing described Allen — a Caltech graduate and high school tutor — not as some trained tactical expert, but as an ideologue who spent part of his Amtrak journey from California to Washington waxing poetic about the landscape around him, describing Pennsylvania’s woods as “vast fairy lands filled with tiny trickling creeks in spring.”

Could have been worse

D’Amico said he and other Marines learned early on in Iraq that entrances to secured locations have to be designed in a “serpentine” fashion, forcing anyone approaching to move more slowly through the area and giving security officers more time to assess their intentions. And at an event the size of the correspondents’ dinner, with so many top officials gathered in a public hotel, you would want to make entrances “even more difficult.”

And yet no barriers seemed to be in place at the event, he said — something anyone trained more than Allen could have capitalized on.

Advertisement

“If they just had come through in a team of three or four who were coordinated and trained, there absolutely would have been penetration into the ballroom,” D’Amico said. “It would have been a gunfight.”

Allen himself questioned the security at the event, according to court records, allegedly writing that he had walked into the Washington Hilton with multiple weapons and no one considered “the possibility that I could be a threat.”

He wrote that if he “was an Iranian agent, instead of an American citizen,” he “could have brought a damn Ma Deuce in here and no one would have noticed” — referring to a powerful machine gun.

“It is fortunate he was only armed with what he had,” said Ed Obayashi, a California law enforcement expert on use of force.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending