Nebraska's Contentious Political Environment

By: Paul Hoffman
Submitted: 2007-01-17 16:25:29
Print this article | Tell a friend | For publisher |

Rating:

 

The bi-annual open season for mud slinging and dirty tricks is quickly coming to a head. On November 7, 2006, Americans go to the polls to elect local, county, state and national leadership. However, the difficult question to answer is, are leaders elected? While there may not be an answer to this question until the next election cycle, examining the senate race in Nebraska offers a glimpse into past leadership of the incumbent versus the his opponent.

This is not specifically a paper on the election process in Nebraska; rather it is research document into public records discovering what extremes a candidate may use to win election or re-election. Using contemporary research methods, this paper explores campaign financing and rhetoric to uncover unethical incorrect events in the 2006 senate race in Nebraska.

The Contenders

Pete Ricketts is the Republican challenger. Ricketts runs on a platform of being a political unknown. Perhaps Ricketts is unknown to the general population of the State, he is not an unknown in the financial community. His father founded Ameritrade, the online investment firm headquartered in Omaha. Recently, Ameritrade merged with T.D. Waterhouse becoming T.D. Ameritrade, thus one of the largest online brokerages in the U.S. Ricketts was Chief Operating Officer until resigning to campaign for U.S. Senate. United States Senator Ben Nelson is the incumbent. He is a Democrat, former Governor, businessman, lay minister, and in his youth a railroad track worker. Ben Nelson has the respect of the State population, respected in the U. S. Senate across party lines, and cited by the President as a person who is bi-partisan for the good of the Country. Often read in the press or heard on radio talk shows is Nelson is more Republican than Ricketts. According to Kennedy (2006), Nelson holds a 78 percent favorability margin and his poll position among likely voters is approximately 57 percent. In a broadcast on Nebraska Educational Television, the reporter compared the Nelson campaign against the Ricketts campaign. The first point made was individual net worth of both. Nelson’s reported net worth is approximately $17 million. Ricketts’ net worth reported in Security and Exchange Commission documents is anywhere from $31 million to $100 million. Ricketts owns 4,773,783 shares of TD Ameritrade (AMTD) at approximately $16.76 per share.

Searching opensecrets.org a Federal Election Commission watchdog, found of the ten largest contributions in Bellevue, Nebraska zip code 68123, six went to the Republican National Committee, one going to the Republican congressional incumbent for re-election, one directly to the Pete Ricketts campaign, one to a local firefighters initiative and one to the National Democratic State Central Committee. In a cross-town zip, 68005, three of ten largest donations went to the Nelson Campaign, three went to TD Ameritrade, and four went to a woman’s health initiative. The report does not indicate a reason for political contributions to TD Ameritrade. The value of this information is useful to make a transition to a discussion of unethical incorrect events in this political campaign. Both candidates claim the other misrepresents views and positions. Both portray the other as untrustworthy and untruthful. In the following paragraphs, we will examine their behaviors to discover events leading up to the contentiousness of their battle.

Unethical Incorrect Events

Immediately noticeable and noteworthy is the absence of both Democrat and Republican national committee support ads for either senatorial candidate. Without national campaign ads running for them, they have to fund their own ad campaigns. According to Federal Election Commission reports obtained from the Washington Post, Nelson’s campaign costs are approximately 7.2 million dollars and Ricketts’ costs are about 10.2 million dollars as of reporting date October 20, 2006.

Ricketts TV, radio, and poster ads claim he takes no special interest money because he will not work for them. However, his campaign reports about $170,000.00 in contributions from political action committees (PAC). This is not a large amount compared to his expenses of 10.2 million dollars; however, deeper exploration shows he accepted almost 1.2 million dollars from individuals in PACs. Among the contributors are large out-of-state financial institutions. In fairness, Ricketts has invested over $10 million from personal holdings.

Nelson makes no claim he does not accept PAC dollars. PACs and individuals in PACs contributed $7.1 million to the campaign. He has taken out-of-state contributions, yet his largest PAC contributors are either Omaha or Nebraska based corporations.

Neither candidate is doing anything illegal; they are following the letter of the law. However, Ricketts claim of accepting no PAC money is not 100 percent accurate.

Accuracy in funding is one issue, yet the deeper issue is how the candidates represent themselves to the public in TV, radio, poster ads and televised debates. Ricketts’ campaign has not been one of issues rather it has been one of ad hominem attacks on Ben Nelson while declaring himself as representing “Nebraska values for Nebraskans” (Ricketts campaign slogan). Nelson spends large sums refuting Ricketts’ ads providing evidence of errors, inconsistencies, and, upon occasion, outright lies. The Nelson campaign, after refuting Ricketts, is issue based. Nelson’s ads attack Ricketts position in issues not personality.

Bank (2006) wrote an article for Annenberg Political Fact Check in which he stared, “In his most recent ad…Pete Ricketts inaccurately uses citations from news reports to draw his own, more incendiary conclusions.” In fairness to Nelson, Bank cites the State Democrat Party, but not Nelson, with an ad suggesting Ricketts tried to avoid paying property tax on his $1.2 million Omaha home. In fact, Ricketts wanted the assessor to reconsider the home tax value at a lower rate.

Discussion

News sources across the Nation report daily that the mid-term election is a Democrat opportunity to regain control of the U.S. House and possibly the Senate. Astute citizens who seek available information from print and online sources can discover for themselves whether a candidate is accurately representing facts. From the research on these two Nebraska candidates and national reporting, one can glean the nature of this election.

Ciulla (2004) shares insight from James Madison following the Revolutionary War. Madison was concerned about factional self-interests since groups will pursue their own interests without concern for others, at others expense. Ciulla continues that the goal of a leader is to shift away from personal causes by turning toward larger causes of collective concern.

Geoghegan and Homan (2006) share a view into making of covenants, agreements obligating parties to fulfill certain expectations. Winning an election obliges the candidate to fulfill promises. However, Green (2006) discussing ethics in politics observes that politicians policing themselves feel they do not answer to a higher authority other than their own ethics committee. One questions whether elected officials recognize their obligation to the electorate and the Nation of service. Are they servants of and to the people, or, in Machiavellian terms, to be served? Miller (2006) offers an answer reinforcing the need to vote responsibly as informed citizens. Writing to a Christian audience, she explains, “As Christians we should consider how the candidates stand on the issues and not get caught in the trap of voting strictly along party lines… They should not only be qualified for the job but should be moral people with good character traits.”

This discussion is not about the relationship of leader to follower as much as making a political leader. Yet, we cannot conclude the discussion of ethics without approaching ethics of means, person, and ends (Ciulla, 2004). We have to acknowledging that one candidate may be intentionally misleading and misrepresenting information to motivate voters (followers) to his personal agenda. Further, one candidate speaks volumes on values and ethics while launching direct attacks on the opponent. It appears the ethics of self is not altruistic. Considering ethical ends, one candidate has already proven himself in both state and national accomplishments. Griffin (2003) asks for ethical proof of source credibility. What is the perceived intelligence of Ricketts and Nelson? Nelson has shown practical wisdom by his years of service to the community. Ricketts attempts to share “Nebraska values for Nebraskans.” It comes down to goodwill. Nelson, perceived intelligent because of his past in government also appears to have the stronger character. Ricketts attacks on Nelson not on issues do not constitute goodwill – the positive judgment by listeners that Ricketts comments are honest and truthful.

Conclusion

Nebraska is a conservative Republican state. Yet, Nebraskans do elect Democrat candidates in local, county, state and national races. Nebraskans have a strong work ethic and a value system, in which both these candidates share. However, inaccuracies and intentional misrepresentations of the Republican camp in attacking the Democrat candidate suggest the means is more important than the ends. Ricketts justifies his personal attacks as necessary because he is a political unknown.

Ricketts personal wealth is considerable, hence his claim of funding his race. However, he has accepted PAC money and personal contributions from individuals in PACs. Nelson has received virtually all his funding from these sources. Both have taken out-of-state contributions.

National party committees have not engaged in either candidates campaign. Nationally recognized personalities have not visited Nebraska in support of either. However, Nelson did receive an in-state endorsement from President Bush, although it came before the campaign season.

U.S. politics is one ideology against another. The ethics of politics is not selecting an option for the greater good but accepting the lesser of two evils.

References:
Bank, J. (2006, August 2). Fake News, Nebraska Style: Senate candidates from both parties stretch credibility in their ads. Annenberg Public Police Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved October 26, 2006 from http://www.factcheck.org/article409.html.

Boudon, R. (2001). The Origin of Values: Sociology and Philosophy of Beliefs. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Ciulla, J. B. (2004). Ethics, the Heart of Leadership (2nd Ed.). Westport: Praeger.

Geoghegan, J. & Homan, M. (2006). The Bible for Dummies. Boca Raton: Wiley, Publishing, Inc.

Green, D. D. (2006). Exploration of Political Decisions: Case Study of the Foley Scandal. Unpublished, Regent University, Virginia Beach.

Griffin, E. (2003). A First Look at Communication Theory (5th Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kennedy, W. (2006, July 18). Ricketts Wants Lower Taxes (For Himself Only). Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Retrieved October 22, 2006 from http://www.fromtheroots.org/story/2006/7/18/12534/9647.

Miller, B. (2006). What does the bible say about… voting? Retrieved November 1, 2006 from http://www.bible.com.

Security and Exchange Commission (2006). Insider and Rule 144 Transactions Reported – Last Two Years.

The Center for Responsive Politics (2006, October 11). Top Itemized Contributions (2006 Election Cycle. Retrieved October 22, 2006 from http://www.opensecrets.org/.

Tobias, M. (Producer/Reporter) with Meints, R. (Videographer/Editor). (2006, October 20). Nelson vs. Ricketts: Nebraska’s Senate Race. Nebraska Educational Telecommunications.

Washington Post (2006, October 20). Campaign 2006. Campaign Funding: Ben Nelson (D, Ne). Washington Post Online. Retrieved October 26, 2006 from http://projects.washingtonpost.com/elections/keyraces/funding/n0005329/.

Washington Post (2006, October 20). Campaign 2006. Campaign Funding: Pete Ricketts (R, Ne). Washington Post Online. Retrieved October 26, 2006 from http://projects.washingtonpost.com/elections/keyraces/funding/n00027695/.

Author Note

The election results returned Senator Nelson (D) to office in Washington D.C. In Nebraska, Democrats and Republicans retained office and gained office. It was not a single party sweep.

Article source: Expert Articles