Osborn narrows fundraising gap with Ricketts in Nebraska U.S. Senate race

[Omaha Steve]

There is no D in this race. Donate to Dan here: https://secure.actblue.com/my-express/engagement-hub/167842

Ricketts still has more cash on hand than former labor leader, but Osborn mounting another well-funded challenge
By: Juan Salinas II - October 17, 2025 5:15 am

LINCOLN — Former nonpartisan Omaha labor leader Dan Osborn is closing the fundraising gap against Nebraska Republican U.S. Sen. Pete Ricketts in Osborn’s second bid for a Senate seat.

Osborn raised $1.09 million in his latest campaign funding haul, while Ricketts raised $884,011 for his campaign and brought in an additional $486,128 through a separate joint fundraising committee — the Pete Ricketts Victory Fund, according to federal fundraising reports. That brings the former two-term governor’s combined war chest to $1.37 million in the third quarter, which runs from July through September.

Ricketts still has more cash on hand than Osborn, with $1.19 million compared to Osborn’s $502,000. But Osborn’s latest fundraising numbers indicate he is again raising enough to mount a serious challenge to a sitting senator. He outraised Republican U.S. Sen. Deb Fischer in the 2024 race, in which he raised $14 million and lost by about six percentage points.

The Ricketts campaign criticized Osborn’s latest fundraising numbers, saying he received a donation from a campaign committee associated with Massachusetts Democra›tic U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren and from a political action committee affiliated with former ​​Montana Democratic Sen. Jon Tester as examples of Osborn’s Democratic Party “connections.”


Nebraska U.S. Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., and registered nonpartisan Dan Osborn. (Juan Salinas II and Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)

[TheFarseer]

1. Pete has unlimited money

Dan’s best chance is a blue wave scenario. Obviously enough money to be seen and taken seriously would be vital to Osborn. I would scream about the Argentina bailout from the rooftops. Trump cares more about billionaires investing in a foreign country than American farmers.