Posted: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 6:00 pm
Attorney General Jon Bruning is amply justified in his decision to seek a grand jury indictment of University of Nebraska Regent David Hergert.
He even sounded enthusiastic about his pending prosecutorial mission, saying he personally “had no reasonable doubt” that Hergert’s violations of campaign finance laws were intentional.
That sort of aggressive spirit inspires confidence that the attorney general is serious about enforcing the law. Bruning’s statement Monday certainly lends more assurance than his comments in July. As he launched his initial investigation, Bruning cautioned: “This is not a witch hunt.”
Hergert’s continued presence on the NU Board of Regents has been a festering sore on governance in Nebraska since his multiple violations of campaign finance laws came to light.
Hergert already has paid $33,512.10 in fines, the largest amount ever levied by the state Accountability and Disclosure Commission. The commission said Hergert admitted accepting an illegal campaign loan, failing to report a late contribution and failing to file two affidavits on time. If Hergert had followed the law, his opponent, Don Blank, would have received about $15,000 in campaign funds in the final days of the campaign.
NU students recognize the incongruity of having a campaign violator on the governing board of a university. The Web site www.huskersagainsthergert.com asks, “We can’t cheat, why can he?”
The Legislature, the UNL faculty senate and UNL student government all have asked Hergert to resign. A poll of Hergert’s constituents commissioned by the Daily Nebraskan student newspaper showed 60 percent think he should resign.
Hergert, however, has continued to conduct business as a regent as though nothing had happened and has refused to comment on the issue.
He met only once with Nebraska State Patrol investigators, Bruning said. Since then, the regent has refused to cooperate with the investigation.
One advantage of a grand jury investigation, Bruning said, is that a grand jury has subpoena powers and can force witnesses to give testimony.
In addition, he said, it will enhance public trust in the process and dampen suspicion that the investigation is politically motivated.
Although Hergert has admitted violating campaign law, whether he committed a criminal act is still an open question. Conviction may be difficult. One of the most important questions in a trial would be whether his acts were intentional.
That question should not go unanswered.
As Bruning correctly put it, “Elections are a key part of democracy, and the integrity of the electoral process must be taken seriously.”
No candidate should be permitted to flout the rule of law.