FIRST ON FOX: A watchdog is urging the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to investigate Nebraska Senate hopeful Dan Osborn, alleging he is improperly steering campaign funds for personal use to nearly half-a-dozen of his relatives, including around a quarter-million-dollars to his wife alone, through his principal campaign committee and a web of political action committees.

Last month, Fox News Digital reported on Osborn’s spending that has come under scrutiny, showing that north of $370,000 had been disbursed to his wife, daughter, sister-in-law, and to himself through his campaign and a web of political action committees. 

A complaint filed with the FEC Monday by conservative watchdog Americans for Public Trust, is now calling on the FEC to investigate Osborn’s spending, and lays out even more relatives receiving money from Osborn’s campaign plus another consulting firm his wife works at that has been receiving funds. In total, the complaint says, Osborn, his wife Megan, daughter Georgia, sister-in-law Jodi, second sister-in-law Bridget and brother-in-law James have received $434,734.42.

Fox News Digital reached out to the Osborn campaign with questions about the payments, but many of them went unanswered. However, a campaign spokesperson did tell Fox News Digital that the campaign “is fully compliant with all FEC rules.”

FIVE SLEEPER RACES THAT COULD UPEND 2026 – FROM THE ALLEGHENIES TO THE LAND OF ENCHANTMENT 

“We haven’t received any formal complaints, but what you describe are baseless, nuisance allegations designed to slow Dan’s momentum as he’s tied with Pete Ricketts in four straight polls,” the spokesperson said. 

While paying family members with campaign money is not necessarily a violation of campaign finance law, concerns have been raised about whether Osborn’s payments to his family members have followed the campaign finance laws that must still be adhered to, such as that the pay must be at fair-market value, it must be strictly for campaign services, must be transparently reported and must not be used for personal expenses, meaning expenses incurred irregardless of the ongoing campaign, like housing costs. 

Entities not controlled and operated by candidates can deal in what is called “soft money,” or money that does not need to comply with federal limits. However, that money cannot then be controlled by the candidate to help him directly with his campaign. Money from entities controlled by candidates, often referred to as “hard money,” must follow the FEC’s limits and other rules.

Americans for Public Trust is accusing Osborn of using an end-around to funnel money to his relatives, including from a now-defunct campaign. They cite the fact that Osborn’s Working Class Heroes Fund (WCHF), which he launched in 2024, has a “join the movement” button that routes users to a form so they can be contacted by a different PAC called the League of Labor Voters. They also cite the involvement of Osborn’s custodian of records for his failed 2024 Senate campaign, Brandon Philipczyk, who was also listed as such in Statement of Organization for Osborn’s WCHF and LLV until just a few days ago.

Americans for Public Trust is alleging that these are not truly outside groups — they are effectively part of Osborn’s operation — and therefore shouldn’t be raising or spending money in ways that function like an end-around to bypass federal limitations.

SQUAD-BACKED PROGRESSIVES HIT WITH ‘COLD SHOWER’ AS MODERATES WIN ILLINOIS PRIMARIES

“Despite being established, financed, maintained, or controlled by federal candidate Dan Osborn and his agents, WCHF and LLV have solicited, received, directed, transferred, or spent funds that do not comply with FECA’s contribution limitations, source prohibitions, and reporting requirements, including receiving contributions from individuals in excess of $5,000 and receiving funds from prohibited sources,” the complaint letter to the FEC states.

Osborn’s wife, Megan, who reportedly was a former bar manager, has raked in around a quarter-million dollars from Osborn’s campaign and a web of political action committees tied to him. 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. 

Just two days after Independent Campaigns was set up, Osborn’s WCHF made its first $50,000 payment to the firm, according to local Nebraska news outlet the Lincoln-Journal Star. Thus far, per the FEC complaint, Independent Campaigns has received nearly $200,000 from Osborn and 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 $300,00 for herself for things like “strategy consulting” and work reimbursements. 

Osborn’s daughter Georgia, a part-time dancer who Osborn says still needs help paying her bills, was given $4,200 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. 

Osborn’s sister-in-law, Jodi, received $1,400 for “treasurer services” from WCHF at the end of 2025, according to campaign disclosures which also show that she is listed as WCHF’s Treasurer.

GOP OVERPERFORMS IN VIRGINIA SPECIAL ELECTION, FUELING EARLY MOMENTUM TALK IN BLUE-TRENDING STATE

Meanwhile, the group also points to a $2,500 payment to Osborn’s brother-in-law, who served as treasurer of Osborn’s 2024 committee, as part of what it calls a broader pattern of family-linked payments that should be scrutinized for bona fide services and fair-market rates.

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

Caitlin Sutherland, Executive Director of Americans for Public Trust, added that Osborn “has become too comfortable blurring the lines between family, fortune, and campaign finance law.”

“Osborn has engaged in various tactics — including utilizing a defunct campaign account — to enrich members of both his immediate and extended family,” Sutherland continued. “In addition to lining the pockets of his close relatives, who appear to lack any notable professional campaign experience—Osborn is racking up federal campaign finance violations by orchestrating a scheme that seemingly finds him illegally running and controlling multiple federal PACs.”  

Besides questions about how Osborn is paying himself and his loved ones, critics of the candidate have also balked at his decision to run as an Independent. Osborn has indicated he has no plans to caucus with either major party if elected and says on his website that, as an Independent, he is “uniquely positioned” to get things done in Congress. Meanwhile, speaking at a town hall, Osborn reportedly told Nebraskans that if his bid as an Independent didn’t work out, “there’s only one party I would caucus with.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

When pressed on which political party he was speaking of, Osborn replied: “Not (Republican) Pete Ricketts’s party,” according to the audio reviewed by Nebraska news organization The Plains Sentinel. However, Osborn’s decision to cash in on national Democratic Party support, including utilizing the party’s main fundraising platform, ActBlue, have led to questions about how independent he really will be.

In December, Osborn was slammed for hiring an anti-cop staffer seen at an anti-police event featuring severed pig heads, and the agency creating Osborn’s ads, Fight Agency, was also behind ads for the Zohran Mamdani, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Rep. Greg Casar, D-Texas, and other Democrats. 

One of the firm’s leaders said they were struck by Osborn’s “over performance” in 2024, leading him to surmise “that Democrats need to run a lot of different kinds of campaigns.”

The consulting firm co-owned by Osborn’s wife, Independent Campaigns, has also worked with Democrat candidates. FEC filings show Nathan Sage, a Democrat running for Senate in Iowa, has paid thousands to Osborn’s wife’s consulting firm.

WASHINGTON — Californians may be forced to put their ballots in the mail well before election day to be certain they will be counted.

That’s the likely outcome of a Republican challenge to mail ballots that came before the Supreme Court on Monday.

The court’s six conservatives sounded ready to rule that federal law requires that ballots must be received by election day if they are to be counted as legal.

In the 19th century, Congress set a national day for federal elections on a Tuesday in early November, but it did not say how or when states would count their ballots. The Constitution leaves it to states to decide the “times, places and manners for holding elections.”

California and 13 other states count mail ballots that were cast before or on election day but arrive a few days late. And most states accept late ballots from members of the military who are stationed overseas.

By law, California counts mail ballots that arrive within seven days of election day. In 2024, more than 406,000 of these late-arriving ballots were counted in California, about 2.5% of the total.

Other Western states — Washington, Oregon, Nevada and Alaska — also count late-arriving mail ballots.

But President Trump has repeatedly claimed that voting by mail leads to fraud, and the Republican National Committee has gone to court to challenge the state laws that allow for counting the legally cast ballots of citizens which are postmarked on time but arrive late.

GOP lawyers argued that the phrase “election day” has always meant ballots must be in the hands of election officials on that day. In their questions and comments, all six conservatives agreed.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. saw a real prospect of fraud. There could be “a big stash of ballots” that arrive late and “flip the outcome,” he said.

Democrats and election law experts say that the proposed new rule conflicts with more than a century of practice, because most states allowed for some people to vote by mail if they were traveling on election day. They argued that election day is like the federal tax day of April 15. While tax returns must be postmarked then, the tax returns are legal even if they arrive at the Internal Revenue Service a few days later.

The GOP filed its challenge in Mississippi, which accepts ballots that arrive up to five days after election day. A district judge rejected the claim, but a 5th Circuit Court panel with three Trump appointees ruled that ballots are illegal if they are not received by election day.

The case before the court is Watson vs. Republican National Committee.

California has been criticized for taking weeks to count all the votes, but that issue was not raised in this case.

A startup putting high-tech collars on cows could soon be worth more than $2 billion, as investors bet the technology could help farmers cut costs and cope with labor shortages.

Halter, a New Zealand-based company, is in talks to raise new funding in a deal expected to be led by billionaire Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund, according to a Bloomberg report. The round is attracting heavy investor interest and is close to being filled, though final details are still being negotiated.

THE SINGLE CRUSHING PROBLEM AMERICAN CATTLE RANCHERS WISH TRUMP WOULD FIX INSTEAD

Farmers are increasingly looking for ways to lower expenses and boost efficiency — changes that could eventually affect food prices for consumers.

Beef prices are already soaring, and economists warn Americans shouldn’t expect relief anytime soon as the U.S. cattle herd has shrunk to its smallest size in 75 years.

The decline has been driven by years of drought, rising costs and an aging ranching workforce. Experts say rebuilding herds will take years, meaning beef prices are likely to remain elevated. 

According to U.S. Department of Agriculture data, the average price of beef in grocery stores climbed from about $8.60 per pound in February 2025 to $10.12 per pound a year later — a roughly 18% increase.

THE COST OF THIS GROCERY STAPLE IS NEARING RECORD HIGHS — AND AMERICANS CAN’T GET ENOUGH

Against that backdrop, Halter is pitching technology aimed at helping farmers do more with less.

The company’s solar-powered, artificial intelligence-driven collars let ranchers herd cattle without fences, using GPS, sound and vibration signals controlled through a smartphone app. The system also tracks livestock health and movement in real time, giving farmers a way to manage herds remotely.

The goal is straightforward — fewer workers, lower costs and more efficient land use.

THE SURPRISING REASON WHY AMERICANS COULD FACE HIGH BEEF PRICES FOR YEARS

Halter is part of a broader push toward “precision agriculture,” where technology is used to modernize farming. But that sector has struggled in recent years, with a wave of startups collapsing and investors pulling back amid high costs and slow adoption.

The company has also expanded into the U.S., opening an office in Colorado and targeting American ranchers as a key growth market.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

If the latest round closes as expected, it would signal renewed confidence that AI can succeed in farming — an industry where many tech bets have fallen short.

Halter did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.