Brashear links new regents
The last three men elected to the University of Nebraska's Board of Regents took strikingly similar paths to Varner Hall. The trio spent nearly $1 million combined to unseat three incumbents, collectively transforming regents' races into high-profile political affairs in the process. They won with similar ideology, a similar campaign strategy and similar Election Day ease. Randy Ferlic, Howard Hawks and Dave Hergert have something else in common: Speaker of the Legislature Kermit Brashear.
Brashear's connections to the three, his long-standing opposition to campaign finance law and his dual role as lawyer and lawmaker may take on increased importance as possible impeachment proceedings begin against Hergert Friday.
"The three cases just seem so interrelated," says Jack Gould of the government watchdog group Common Cause. "You just see the same things over and over. And Brashear is right there every time."
The newest regent, found guilty of a grab-bag of campaign finance violations, apparently won't complete his term in office if the majority of the Legislature has its way.
Twenty-nine senators signed a resolution earlier this month calling for the Mitchell businessman to step down or face possible impeachment after the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission found him guilty of four separate campaign finance violations.
But Hergert's impeachment will happen only over Speaker Brashear's objections.
Brashear first defended Hergert as an attorney, helping to negotiate a settlement calling for his client to pay $33,512 in fines but protecting him from criminal prosecution by the commission.
He then defended Hergert to reporters on the floor of the Legislature, saying further punishment was unfair and suggesting some state senators were out to get the western Nebraska regent because of his opposition to fetal-tissue and embryonic stem-cell research.
Now Brashear — who's no longer Hergert's lawyer — must decide if he'll play a legislative role in the impeachment hearing.
A week ago, he said he saw no conflict of interest in the case since he'd reported the employment to Accountability and Disclosure.
He refused an interview request for this story Wednesday and couldn't be reached for comment by telephone Friday.
"I see a tremendous conflict," says Don Blank, the McCook dentist and long-time regent who lost to Hergert in November.
Blank also is being investigated for campaign finance violations since Brashear filed a complaint alleging wrongdoing last week.
"I think everyone knows where his sentiments are and what he wants to see eventually accomplished," Blank said.
This isn't the first time Brashear has placed himself in the center of a regents' campaign finance situation.
That came in 2000, when Randy Ferlic became the first regents candidate to break spending records while utilizing a campaign strategy that's seemingly become the blueprint to defeat incumbent regents.
The blueprint, since followed by both Hawks and Hergert:
n Spend money.
Ferlic announced his intention to spend $1 per constituent early during the campaign, and eventually spent $289,000 to defeat incumbent Rosemary Skrupa, easily a regent's record at the time.
n Research the opponent's record.
Ally Milder, an Omaha lawyer who managed both the Ferlic and Hawks campaigns, said employing an out-of-state group to spend time inside Varner Hall investigating the incumbent's voting record was essential in both victories.
Regents, Blank among them, have said nothing of the sort had been done before Ferlic's campaign.
"Any campaign I do, I do opposition research," Milder said Friday. "You want to compare and contrast with your opponent and give the voters an accurate choice."
The Hergert campaign did opposition research as well.
n Publicize that record.
Ferlic ran a blitz of TV and radio ads in the final weeks challenging Skrupa's competency as a regent.
The heavy television presence was another first, but was soon to be emulated by Hawks and Hergert.
n Get the Right to Life endorsement.
The hot-button abortion issue became far more relevant in 1999, when the public learned the University of Nebraska Medical Center had been using aborted fetal tissue in scientific research for years.
All three candidates had strong support from Nebraska Right to Life.
n Highlight the candidate's business background and how he or she will use it to transform the university.
"I think (fetal tissue) is one of the issues and I think it's an important issue," Milder said. "As important is the sense that the university was declining. I think that motivated both the candidates and their backers."
Ferlic's backers included Brashear, who donated $1,000 to his campaign.
Ferlic challenged the constitutionality of the state's campaign finance law soon after winning easily on Election Day.
Brashear served as the lawyer in that case, which the new regent eventually dropped.
During the next legislative session, a state senator introduced a bill to repeal the state's campaign finance law, effectively doing what Ferlic's lawsuit would have.
The senator was Kermit Brashear.
"He should have to make a choice," Gould said. "Either I'm gonna be a senator or a lawyer.
"And if he chooses lawyer, he shouldn't bring legislation that benefits his client."
Howard Hawks has never employed Brashear as an attorney, the Omaha regent said last week. But Brashear did donate $1,000 to his 2002 campaign.
And like Ferlic, Hawks hired Milder as his campaign manager.
Retired Omaha businessman and former NU Regent Richard Herman, one of Brashear's largest clients, served as Hawks' treasurer.
Herman, Walter Scott and other Omaha heavy hitters show up on campaign donor lists for both Ferlic and Hawks.
In an interview Tuesday, Hawks said he and Brashear have known each other for three decades after being introduced by a mutual friend.
Hawks, an Omaha businessman, spent $405,124 on his campaign and unseated incumbent Nancy O'Brien using much the same strategy as Ferlic.
He also is no fan of campaign finance law, saying it limits the rights of Nebraskans who want to run for office.
Hawks believes it foolish to criticize his willingness to spend money on a campaign.
In his case, his colleagues seem to agree — privately, he's consistently lauded as an excellent regent by other board members.
"To me it was a big deal," the current board chairman said of being elected to NU's Board of Regents. "I wanted to change some things at the university, the cost of education, how long it takes kids to graduate.
"I invested my money and a lot of my friends' money to get to do that."
But the big spending trend doesn't sit well with many members of the board.
Regent Chuck Hassebrook of Lyons, who's planning to run for a third term in 2006, says he'll abide by the campaign finance spending limit even though it's increasingly clear that an as-yet unnamed challenger will not.
"This is driving away candidates who are ordinary folks, the people that connect a public office to the ordinary citizens that the office is supposed to represent," he says.
Hergert didn't spend nearly the money the previous two successful challengers had, but the $150,000 he did spend was nearly three times as much as incumbent Blank.
The western Nebraska campaign didn't involve Milder, she said. It also didn't include many of the same contributors that funded the Ferlic and Hawks campaigns.
Hergert did closely mirror Ferlic's campaign when he embarked on a spending frenzy just weeks before Election Day.
In Hawks' case, O'Brien didn't abide by the campaign spending limit, either. This eases many of the restrictions on both candidates and prohibits both from accepting state campaign finance money.
That late spending gets a candidate's name to the public just as it begins to care about the election, Milder says.
But it also utilizes a loophole in state campaign finance law.
The later Ferlic or Hergert emptied their campaign war chests, the longer their opponents had to wait to receive the state campaign finance money.
Ferlic's opponent didn't receive the hundreds of thousands of dollars she was owed by state law until days before the election. Skrupa spent $27,000 and gave the rest back to the state.
Blank saw none of the tens of thousands of dollars he could have gotten because Hergert failed to fail a crucial affidavit in mid-October.
The former regent believes it may have cost him the election.
His successor said after the election western Nebraskans had voted in a true advocate for their part of the state.
Hergert since has stopped talking to the media, instructing his secretaries at Hergert Milling to say "no comment" to reporters and failing to return messages left with his wife.
Brashear has served as his de facto spokesman for the past month. He signed on as Hergert's attorney after the candidate appeared to violate campaign finance law by missing deadlines, borrowing $25,000 more than he was allowed and spending twice as much as he estimated.
Last week, a Journal Star reporter asked Brashear if there was any connection between his representation of Ferlic and Hergert in their campaign finance cases.
Brashear said he had known both long before they were regents' candidates and had represented each on and off through the years.
"It's a coincidence," he said.
Reach Matthew Hansen at 473-7245 or mhansen@journalstar.com.
How it works
Nebraska's campaign finance law is designed to give a political candidate who abides by the spending limit the same amount of money his or her non-abiding opponent is raising and spending.
The law is set up to release state campaign finance money when a candidate reaches 40 percent of his or her spending estimate.
Brashear's connections to the three, his long-standing opposition to campaign finance law and his dual role as lawyer and lawmaker may take on increased importance as possible impeachment proceedings begin against Hergert Friday.
"The three cases just seem so interrelated," says Jack Gould of the government watchdog group Common Cause. "You just see the same things over and over. And Brashear is right there every time."
The newest regent, found guilty of a grab-bag of campaign finance violations, apparently won't complete his term in office if the majority of the Legislature has its way.
Twenty-nine senators signed a resolution earlier this month calling for the Mitchell businessman to step down or face possible impeachment after the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission found him guilty of four separate campaign finance violations.
But Hergert's impeachment will happen only over Speaker Brashear's objections.
Brashear first defended Hergert as an attorney, helping to negotiate a settlement calling for his client to pay $33,512 in fines but protecting him from criminal prosecution by the commission.
He then defended Hergert to reporters on the floor of the Legislature, saying further punishment was unfair and suggesting some state senators were out to get the western Nebraska regent because of his opposition to fetal-tissue and embryonic stem-cell research.
Now Brashear — who's no longer Hergert's lawyer — must decide if he'll play a legislative role in the impeachment hearing.
A week ago, he said he saw no conflict of interest in the case since he'd reported the employment to Accountability and Disclosure.
He refused an interview request for this story Wednesday and couldn't be reached for comment by telephone Friday.
"I see a tremendous conflict," says Don Blank, the McCook dentist and long-time regent who lost to Hergert in November.
Blank also is being investigated for campaign finance violations since Brashear filed a complaint alleging wrongdoing last week.
"I think everyone knows where his sentiments are and what he wants to see eventually accomplished," Blank said.
This isn't the first time Brashear has placed himself in the center of a regents' campaign finance situation.
That came in 2000, when Randy Ferlic became the first regents candidate to break spending records while utilizing a campaign strategy that's seemingly become the blueprint to defeat incumbent regents.
The blueprint, since followed by both Hawks and Hergert:
n Spend money.
Ferlic announced his intention to spend $1 per constituent early during the campaign, and eventually spent $289,000 to defeat incumbent Rosemary Skrupa, easily a regent's record at the time.
n Research the opponent's record.
Ally Milder, an Omaha lawyer who managed both the Ferlic and Hawks campaigns, said employing an out-of-state group to spend time inside Varner Hall investigating the incumbent's voting record was essential in both victories.
Regents, Blank among them, have said nothing of the sort had been done before Ferlic's campaign.
"Any campaign I do, I do opposition research," Milder said Friday. "You want to compare and contrast with your opponent and give the voters an accurate choice."
The Hergert campaign did opposition research as well.
n Publicize that record.
Ferlic ran a blitz of TV and radio ads in the final weeks challenging Skrupa's competency as a regent.
The heavy television presence was another first, but was soon to be emulated by Hawks and Hergert.
n Get the Right to Life endorsement.
The hot-button abortion issue became far more relevant in 1999, when the public learned the University of Nebraska Medical Center had been using aborted fetal tissue in scientific research for years.
All three candidates had strong support from Nebraska Right to Life.
n Highlight the candidate's business background and how he or she will use it to transform the university.
"I think (fetal tissue) is one of the issues and I think it's an important issue," Milder said. "As important is the sense that the university was declining. I think that motivated both the candidates and their backers."
Ferlic's backers included Brashear, who donated $1,000 to his campaign.
Ferlic challenged the constitutionality of the state's campaign finance law soon after winning easily on Election Day.
Brashear served as the lawyer in that case, which the new regent eventually dropped.
During the next legislative session, a state senator introduced a bill to repeal the state's campaign finance law, effectively doing what Ferlic's lawsuit would have.
The senator was Kermit Brashear.
"He should have to make a choice," Gould said. "Either I'm gonna be a senator or a lawyer.
"And if he chooses lawyer, he shouldn't bring legislation that benefits his client."
Howard Hawks has never employed Brashear as an attorney, the Omaha regent said last week. But Brashear did donate $1,000 to his 2002 campaign.
And like Ferlic, Hawks hired Milder as his campaign manager.
Retired Omaha businessman and former NU Regent Richard Herman, one of Brashear's largest clients, served as Hawks' treasurer.
Herman, Walter Scott and other Omaha heavy hitters show up on campaign donor lists for both Ferlic and Hawks.
In an interview Tuesday, Hawks said he and Brashear have known each other for three decades after being introduced by a mutual friend.
Hawks, an Omaha businessman, spent $405,124 on his campaign and unseated incumbent Nancy O'Brien using much the same strategy as Ferlic.
He also is no fan of campaign finance law, saying it limits the rights of Nebraskans who want to run for office.
Hawks believes it foolish to criticize his willingness to spend money on a campaign.
In his case, his colleagues seem to agree — privately, he's consistently lauded as an excellent regent by other board members.
"To me it was a big deal," the current board chairman said of being elected to NU's Board of Regents. "I wanted to change some things at the university, the cost of education, how long it takes kids to graduate.
"I invested my money and a lot of my friends' money to get to do that."
But the big spending trend doesn't sit well with many members of the board.
Regent Chuck Hassebrook of Lyons, who's planning to run for a third term in 2006, says he'll abide by the campaign finance spending limit even though it's increasingly clear that an as-yet unnamed challenger will not.
"This is driving away candidates who are ordinary folks, the people that connect a public office to the ordinary citizens that the office is supposed to represent," he says.
Hergert didn't spend nearly the money the previous two successful challengers had, but the $150,000 he did spend was nearly three times as much as incumbent Blank.
The western Nebraska campaign didn't involve Milder, she said. It also didn't include many of the same contributors that funded the Ferlic and Hawks campaigns.
Hergert did closely mirror Ferlic's campaign when he embarked on a spending frenzy just weeks before Election Day.
In Hawks' case, O'Brien didn't abide by the campaign spending limit, either. This eases many of the restrictions on both candidates and prohibits both from accepting state campaign finance money.
That late spending gets a candidate's name to the public just as it begins to care about the election, Milder says.
But it also utilizes a loophole in state campaign finance law.
The later Ferlic or Hergert emptied their campaign war chests, the longer their opponents had to wait to receive the state campaign finance money.
Ferlic's opponent didn't receive the hundreds of thousands of dollars she was owed by state law until days before the election. Skrupa spent $27,000 and gave the rest back to the state.
Blank saw none of the tens of thousands of dollars he could have gotten because Hergert failed to fail a crucial affidavit in mid-October.
The former regent believes it may have cost him the election.
His successor said after the election western Nebraskans had voted in a true advocate for their part of the state.
Hergert since has stopped talking to the media, instructing his secretaries at Hergert Milling to say "no comment" to reporters and failing to return messages left with his wife.
Brashear has served as his de facto spokesman for the past month. He signed on as Hergert's attorney after the candidate appeared to violate campaign finance law by missing deadlines, borrowing $25,000 more than he was allowed and spending twice as much as he estimated.
Last week, a Journal Star reporter asked Brashear if there was any connection between his representation of Ferlic and Hergert in their campaign finance cases.
Brashear said he had known both long before they were regents' candidates and had represented each on and off through the years.
"It's a coincidence," he said.
Reach Matthew Hansen at 473-7245 or mhansen@journalstar.com.
How it works
Nebraska's campaign finance law is designed to give a political candidate who abides by the spending limit the same amount of money his or her non-abiding opponent is raising and spending.
The law is set up to release state campaign finance money when a candidate reaches 40 percent of his or her spending estimate.
Copyright © 2002-2008 Lincoln Journal Star. All rights reserved.