JACK GOULD | Posted: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 6:00 pm
In a written agreement, Speaker Kermit Brashear has promised to bring the Campaign Finance Reform Bill (LB188) to the floor of the Legislature to examine needed changes. He also has promised to attach an amendment that would eliminate the entire Campaign Finance Limitations Act. Why?
The following information has been gathered from the campaign finance records of University of Nebraska regents Randy Ferlic, Howard Hawks and David Hergert. Information also has been taken from Speaker Brashear’s Statement of Financial Interests and his Conflict of Interest Statement. These records are available at the Accountability and Disclosure Commission Office on the 11th floor of the state Capitol.
During Ferlic’s campaign to become a University of Nebraska regent in 2000, Richard Herman — a former NU regent and an important client of Brashear’s law firm — agreed to act as treasurer. Ferlic decided not to accept the voluntary spending limit of $50,000 and filed a required estimate of spending ($350,000).
Herman’s total contributions to the campaign reached $118,925.22; Brashear contributed $1,000, Ferlic $25,000, future Regent Hawks $25,000, and Walter Scott $15,000. Ferlic actually spent $289,499. Before Ferlic’s campaign, no one running for the office of NU regent had ever exceeded $50,000 in campaign spending.
After the successful campaign, Ferlic hired Sen. Brashear to bring a lawsuit to eliminate the CFLA. The suit was filed but later dropped as public concern mounted. Brashear then returned to the Capitol and launched a number of efforts to accomplish Ferlic’s goal legislatively.
In 2002, Hawks entered the race for NU regent. He estimated his campaign spending would reach $450,000, and many of the same contributors stepped up: Herman contributed $65,000, Brashear $1,000, Ferlic $10,000, Hawks $51,000 and Scott $10,000. Hawks spent a total of $405,124.72.
In 2004, Hergert ran for NU regent. He spent $149,625.63 and violated several campaign finance laws. When Hergert was fined $33,000, it was Speaker Brashear, in his capacity as lawyer, who defended him.
This brings us back to the question of why Brashear is so committed to eliminating the CFLA. Here are a number of thoughts to consider:
1. The speaker may believe LB188 will make the kind of spending we have seen in regent races less likely and more visible.
2. If a candidate agrees to abide by the spending limits, “fair fight funds” are triggered when the non-abiding candidate exceeds 40 percent of his estimate. This could mean wealthy candidates, able to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, could lose their advantage if the campaign is run fairly.
3. At the start of a campaign, when a nonabiding candidate must file a campaign-spending estimate, the public will be alerted that a big spender is running. Anyone spending $400,000 over the limit might deserve more scrutiny.
4. The speaker’s former client, Hergert, was caught violating the CFLA and by eliminating the act Hergert’s chances of impeachment and a felony conviction are weakened.
5. The speaker may believe he can accomplish on the floor of the Legislature what he did not accomplish in court for his client Ferlic.
One outcome is certain if Brashear succeeds in eliminating the Campaign Finance Limitation Act. Ordinary Nebraskans, who do not have access to vast sums of money, will find it increasingly difficult to have confidence that their elected officials are working in their best interest rather than those of just a few wealthy men. We must make sure the CFLA stays in place. Brashear’s “killer amendment” must be defeated.
Jack Gould is issues chairman of Common Cause Nebraska.