Dan Osborn staffers infiltrated rival political party, tried to dissolve it

Records obtained by the Flatwater Free Press show an attempt last year to disband Nebraska’s Legal Marijuana NOW Party in an effort to clear the Senate field. It was an early effort to meddle in a race now plagued by allegations of deceit on both sides.

Two paid staffers of Dan Osborn’s 2024 campaign joined an effort to dissolve a rival political party last year, according to records obtained by the Flatwater Free Press. The records reveal the lengths Osborn’s allies have gone to clear the field for the nonpartisan U.S. Senate candidate as he attempts to unseat Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts.

The two staffers, Christoph Marsh and Will Ramsey, joined Nebraska’s Legal Marijuana NOW Party’s executive board at a virtual party convention in April 2024, when they were among 10 people elected as vice presidents of the state’s smallest political party. That group also included at least two Osborn campaign volunteers and three others with ties to his campaign, its staffers or his political allies, according to documents Flatwater obtained from the Secretary of State’s Office and other public records.

The group gave no indication of their ties to Osborn when they joined the virtual convention. Marsh introduced them as friends who had newly joined the party and offered proof of their voter registrations. “I trust you Christoph,” the party’s chairman, Mark Elworth Jr., wrote later.

The reason for their presence in the party’s upper ranks would later become clear: They could help ensure an Osborn proxy could not be replaced if she won the party’s nomination and then withdrew.

That in turn could help narrow the field for Osborn, first against Sen. Deb Fischer in a close race Osborn lost and now in a matchup against Ricketts that could help determine control of the U.S. Senate. Both races were believed to be close enough that the existence of another non-Republican on the ballot could spoil Osborn’s chances. 

The methods Osborn’s supporters pioneered in the Legal Marijuana NOW Party’s 2024 race have played out again this year. Republicans have accused candidates in two primaries of being Osborn plants running the same playbook: Win and then drop out to narrow the field for Osborn.

Their victories have prompted backlash from the Republican secretary of state and drawn a lawsuit from the Democratic primary’s runner-up, who himself has been accused of being a Ricketts plant. They have spurred the creation of two new suspect political parties and yet more lawsuits challenging their legitimacy.

Long before any alleged plant candidates filed to run for office this year, the Osborn supporters and staffers filed paperwork with Secretary of State Bob Evnen’s office seeking to dissolve the Legal Marijuana NOW Party altogether, according to the documents obtained by Flatwater.

Chelsea Richardson, a volunteer for Osborn’s 2024 campaign, sent Evnen’s office a notice in April 2025 claiming that the party had decided to dissolve itself with the support of a majority of the party’s executive board. Richardson provided sworn affidavits supporting the move from nine supposed vice presidents of the party, including herself, the Osborn staffers Marsh and Ramsey and Delanie Ness, a paid employee of Kerry Eddy’s 2024 campaign for the Legal Marijuana NOW Party’s Senate nomination, which she won after campaigning as an Osborn proxy.

Richardson’s husband, Ramsey’s father and Ness’s fiancé also signed sworn affidavits supporting the party’s dissolution.

In the end, the effort failed.

Elworth, then the party’s chairman, told Evnen’s office the party elected new officers two days before Richardson filed her notice, ousting all nine of the vice presidents who sought to dissolve the party. In a June 2025 letter to Richardson, Evnen concluded that the group of nine didn’t appear to have the authority to dissolve the party and rejected their attempt.

Geoff Lorenz, an associate professor of political science at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln who studies political parties, called the effort a “wild case” of what American political operatives from both major parties have long sought to do: use election laws to prevent third parties and third-party candidates from succeeding.

“If I was going to do what they were trying to … I would only do it if I really believed that actually, legally speaking, I counted as an officer of this party,” he said.

The attempt to end the political party drew criticism from rival political operatives who cast it as an early effort by Osborn and his allies to meddle in an election that has since been plagued by dueling allegations of deceit.

Elworth, who has since moved to Colorado, called the effort “fraudulent” and said it undermined Nebraska’s democracy. 

Max Oberg, the deputy campaign manager for Ricketts, said in a statement that Flatwater’s findings marked “a new low – even for the Osborn campaign.” 

“Osborn is so desperate to win he’ll dissolve parties, rig ballots, and plant fake candidates to trick voters,” Oberg said. “The steps Dan Osborn has taken to subvert democracy and undermine our elections should alarm every Nebraskan. The authorities should investigate accordingly.”

Xavier Royer, the spokesman for Osborn’s campaign, said Osborn “had nothing to do with the Legal Marijuana Now Party activities.”

Jessica Nelms, left, of Cambridge, chats with Dan Osborn at the Blair Public Library on Tuesday in Blair. Nelms said she drove four hours from Cambridge for an opportunity to see and speak with Osborn, who is running as an independent for one of Nebraska’s seats in the U.S. Senate. Photo by Rebecca S. Gratz for the Flatwater Free Press

“The reason Dan is an independent candidate is to avoid the gamesmanship that comes with party politics,” Royer said in a statement, noting that Osborn’s campaign and the Legal Marijuana NOW Party share some goals, including the protection of legal medical marijuana in the state and the federal rescheduling of cannabis. “It’s not surprising there might be individuals with connections to both.”

The campaign did not make Ramsey, a paid staffer of Osborn’s 2026 campaign, available for an interview. Flatwater’s efforts to contact Marsh, who did not return to work for Osborn’s campaign staff in 2026 and who lived in Missouri when he signed his affidavit supporting the marijuana party’s dissolution last year, weren’t successful. Richardson declined to comment.

Osborn has long distanced himself from the partisan candidates who have campaigned promising to support him and the Democratic Party altogether. His independence has helped bring him some level of electoral success: Osborn lost to Fischer in 2024 by less than 7% while Ricketts beat his Democratic challenger by more than 25 points. 

But in the last two election cycles, outside groups have spent big money backing Osborn while at the same time propping up the candidacies of alleged Osborn plants.

In 2024, when Eddy won the Legal Marijauna NOW Party’s Senate nomination that she pledged to reject in support of Osborn, a Nebraska-based Super PAC called Railroaders for Public Safety spent $34,658 boosting Eddy’s candidacy in a primary race, much more than her opponent spent in total.

The same PAC spent $1.34 million supporting Osborn and opposing Fischer, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

This year, Republicans labeled two primary candidates – Cindy Burbank in the Democratic primary and Mike Marvin in the Legal Marijauana NOW primary – as Osborn plants. Burbank sought the Democratic nomination only after a Trump-supporting pastor, Bill Forbes, filed to run. Nebraska Democratic Party leaders, who opted not to run a Senate candidate and endorsed Osborn, cast Forbes as a Ricketts plant meant to dilute Osborn’s chances.

William McCall, a staff member of Dan Osborn’s campaign, organizes signs for supporters at the Blair Public Library. Photo by Rebecca S. Gratz for the Flatwater Free Press

Burbank joined the race and ran the Eddy playbook, winning her party’s primary but declining its Senate nomination in a move that the secretary of state called “a cynical manipulation of the ballot process.” Her withdrawal prompted a stalled legal challenge from Forbes that is unlikely to change the outcome: a narrowed field for Osborn.

Marvin, meanwhile, won his primary but did not withdraw from the Senate race. If he had, the Legal Marijuana NOW Party could have nominated a replacement candidate – which it sought to do when Eddy withdrew in 2024 in an effort that was voted down in part by Osborn supporters who had joined the party. 

Marvin told the Nebraska Examiner earlier this month he never planned to leave the race but also has no plans to hold any campaign events before the general election. His campaign website promises to “work with other candidates in the race to make sure we have a united front against Pete Ricketts in November.” 

Both Burbank and Marvin’s primary campaigns were boosted by the same donor: the Common Defense Action Fund, a PAC that spent $73,445 on print and digital ads supporting Marvin, $286,048 supporting Burbank’s campaign and another $63,331 opposing Forbes, her Democratic primary opponent, including on mailers depicting him with Ricketts.

Dan Osborn speaks to a group of about 70 people Tuesday at the Blair Public Library. Osborn is running as an independent for one of Nebraska’s seats in the U.S. Senate. Photo by Rebecca S. Gratz for the Flatwater Free Press

Common Defense Action Fund has in turn drawn much of its funding this year from two sources: Contours Inc., and Common Defense Civic Engagement. 

Contours Inc., a Delaware-based nonprofit, has also donated $450,000 to the Working Class Heroes Fund, a PAC Osborn launched following his loss to Fischer in 2024. Common Defense Civic Engagement has also donated $10,000 to that same Osborn PAC.

The PAC money is not the only spending that ties Burbank’s and Marvin’s campaigns together. 

When they filed to run for Senate in their respective primaries 15 minutes apart on the March 2 deadline day, Burbank wrote the check that paid for Marvin’s $1,740 filing fee, the Examiner reported in March.

Burbank told that news outlet she paid Marvin’s fee after Evnen’s office refused to accept his own check, which she said was for $10 too much. Marvin said he had never heard of Burbank. His campaign refunded Burbank for the check in May, according to FEC records.

Neither Burbank nor Marvin returned phone calls seeking comment for this story.

More than a month after both won their respective primaries, dueling campaigns launched to gather enough signatures to create two new political parties in Nebraska that could place yet more Senate candidates on November’s ballot.

First came the Nebraska Working People Party, which Nebraska Democratic Party Chair Jane Kleeb has tied to Ricketts and said is meant to “divide the vote and create chaos.” 

Then came the America First Party, sponsored by John Cartier, an attorney listed in FEC records as Marvin’s campaign treasurer this year and Eddy’s in 2024. Marvin’s campaign filed an amended statement of organization Monday naming a new treasurer.

Nebraska’s Republican Party called Cartier’s attempt to establish the America First Party a “fraudulent” one designed to “trick conservative voters into splitting their vote,” linking it to Osborn and the Democrats. Cartier did not return a phone call or email seeking comment.

an Osborn wears an American flag pin on his work boots while speaking to constituents at Blair Public Library on Tuesday. Photo by Rebecca S. Gratz for the Flatwater Free Press

The Nebraska Democratic Party and state GOP each sued to halt the new political party they claim is meant to deceive their own voters. A Lancaster County judge dismissed those suits Thursday, potentially clearing the way for both parties to place candidates on November’s ballot pending appeals.

The plant candidates and legal challenges have been a source of frustration for Kleeb, the chair of the Nebraska Democrats, who said her party remains “the only one that’s been honest throughout this process.”

“We said from the beginning we are making a conscious decision as a party not to field somebody in the U.S. Senate race, because we think Dan Osborn has a great shot of beating Pete Ricketts,” she said. “And then all these other games happened.”

Elworth, the former Legal Marijuana NOW Party chairman, said he expects electoral reforms that could harm parties like his. He said he fears lawmakers, after watching this year’s primary fights and the legal battles that followed, could make it harder for third parties to maintain ballot access in Nebraska.

“I’m going to tell you what’s gonna happen next,” he said. “Now, the Unicameral, after this election – they are going to crack down.”

By Andrew Wegley

Andrew Wegley is a reporter for the Flatwater Free Press. He previously covered state government and politics for the Lincoln Journal Star, where he kept a close eye on Nebraska's governor, lawmakers and prison system. A Kansas City, Missouri, native, he joined the paper as a breaking news reporter after graduating from Northwest Missouri State University in 2021.

12 Comments

I criticize Flatwater articles when I see problems with them, but I also give credit when credit is due. This is quite possibly the best article Flatwater has ever written. You clearly did investigative work to discover this, and it is undeniably newsworthy information. You can be proud that this article lives up to your mission statement to conduct “investigations” that “matter.”

And I’m going to be honest, I’m shocked your editor let you publish this. Hell, I’m going to save it before it gets taken down, just to be sure. So many Democrats in this state have sold out to prop up Osborn that I never would have believed Flatwater would challenge this guy. Please keep proving me wrong on this, because Nebraska needs news sources willing to tell the truth that this guy isn’t a super hero who descended from the heavens to rescue everyone from bad politics. This guy IS the bad politics, just with a sneaky new playbook!

Democrats fund his campaign with out of state cash. Democrats from out of state organizations campaign for him. Democrats tanked their own candidate to “clear the field” for Osborn. And as this article shows, Osborn foot soldiers even tried to sabotage other political parties in their crusade to “clear the field” for this guy. The goal is very obviously to dress up a left-wing Democrat as an “independent” candidate in hopes of swaying centrists to vote for him, while eliminating any alternative option from the ballot to ensure Democrats have no choice but to support him as well.

This is America and you have a First Amendment right to run for office on whatever crazy platform you want. But I believe candidates at the very least have a responsibility to be honest and truthful about their crazy ideas. The length to which Osborn has gone to deceive the public about what side he is on should be disqualifying on its own.

FI:

I largely agree.

A few months back, FFP went after some guy (a pastor?) from Paxton, NE who appeared to be a ballot plant. I suggested then that FFP should look into what the Dems were up to with He/She/They Dan Osborn.

This article does fit well in FFP’s mission.

KUDOS!

I’m not surprised by any of this, nor am I alarmed. We see worse on a daily basis from the president of the United States and the other grifters in his administration. It would be nice if we had Ranked-Choice Voting so that smaller and single-issue political parties could function without accidentally helping George Bush win the presidency in 2000, for example. But until then, the only thing I’m sure about is I will never vote for any Republican. Especially someone like Pete Ricketts, who refuses already to do his job as interim senator and hold this lawless president accountable.

Even if we take what you are saying as true (which I do not) and evaluate your argument based only on the logic it uses, then what we have is what is usually called a “whataboutism” these days. You didn’t provide any serious justification of Dan Osborn’s actions or even attempt to argue that what his staff did was ethical. You just said that some other guy did something you think is worse, so that makes it okay.

Ranked choice voting also would not help in a situation like this. Ranked choice might be useful in a situation where there are a large number of potential candidates to choose from. But the whole problem this article is telling us about is that the political elite are trying to manipulate the system and “clear the field” so that you have no choice but to vote for a narrow selection of options. If you only have two choices and have to rank them as your first choice and second choice, then that functions barely any differently from just voting for one guy or the other. This is why this “clear the field” strategy that Osborn and his Democrat allies are relying on is so dishonest. It’s denying everyone the opportunity to make real choices.

You also incidentally touched on the motive for why this is happening. Osborn supporters rarely have anything to say about Osborn himself. Osborn doesn’t even want to talk about his own policy positions, because he doesn’t want to get nailed down on what his positions actually are. The only thing team Osborn wants people to focus on is hating Ricketts so much that it justifies anything necessary to beat him.

This entire campaign boils down to making everyone engage in a surrogate vote against Trump by denying any other options other than “Osborn/Not Trump” or “Ricketts/Trump”. Rank that however you want, but at the end of the day the political insiders with out of state money are still calling the shots.

a. ” It would be nice if we had Ranked-Choice Voting ..”

Ranked choice voting is clearly an anti-democratic method of voting.

b. “. Especially someone like Pete Ricketts, who refuses already to do his job as interim senator

Uh, Sen. Ricketts soundly won the 2024 special election for the senate seat.

Ohh, I see, another Democrat election denier.

Given this story, I expect to see one equally in-depth about the chicanery of the Ricketts campaign and the Nebraska Republican Party’s questionably legal shenanigans.

In today’s political environment, you should have known that publishing a story like this will get you called out for NOT publishing one about the clear fraud from Republicans. That you either knew and ignored that reality, or didn’t know & didn’t care to think about it poses serious questions that cut at your integrity.

Those are the rules these days. I didn’t make ’em, but I am enforcing them.

Further, any attempted clap back at me for noting this makes you or anyone who does so appear biased, and therefore, null and void in this argument.

You folks are usually better than this. Figure it out. Do better.

Shawn… If Flatwater has a political bias, that bias is CLEARLY slanted to the left side of the political spectrum. On any given day here at Flatwater, you are highly likely to get an article about an LGTBQ artist, inner city Omaha drama, fluff pieces for Public Transportation, or perhaps even a very enlightening investigation into why guys with man buns play frisbee in the park. But news that is biased in favor of Republicans is one thing you will never see here.

As for articles investigating alleged “chicanery” by Ricketts… Well, they already did one! A few months ago they did a deep dive into the social media history of the small town pastor who ran for the Democrat primary and accused him of being a Ricketts plant because he espoused traditional Christian beliefs about sexual morality and other contemporary issues. There is no actual evidence that Ricketts or his staff put the pastor up to his political stunt, but I think we can all agree that he wasn’t an actual Democrat (since Democrats hate traditional Christian beliefs).

There are a lot of valid criticisms of Flatwater, but saying they favor Republicans or that they only published one side of this specific story is not one of those valid criticisms.

Another point I neglected to include: This article appeared on Flatwater first, but it was also picked up by the Nebraska Examiner.

This matters because the Examiner has also run many more articles about the various schemes that different groups have used to try to manipulate this election. So even if you feel that Flatwater hasn’t said enough about the topic already, there is even more dirt waiting for your reading pleasure over at the Examiner.

Those articles include ones that have looked at the so-called “America First” party which was created by John Cartier. Not only is Cartier a far-left wing activist who would never join an actual political platform that advocated for America first principles, but he was also the attorney for Osborn’s 2024 political campaign. Hmmm!

And meanwhile, Douglas County District Court Clerk Crystal Rhoades attempted to convince the Democrats that they should nominate and run their own candidate, but she was shouted down and insulted for doing so. Instead the Democrats are sticking to their insistence on endorsing Osborn.

So many of these tactics to manipulate the election link back to Osborn. Isn’t that interesting? He is so desperate to convince us all that he is an “independent” that the only way he can do it is by manipulating political parties he allegedly has nothing to do with.

Leave a Reply