An “independent” candidate who is actually a leftist may win the U.S. Senate race in Nebraska, enabling the Democrats to maintain control of the U.S. Senate, and pass left-wing legislation such as the PRO Act, which would eliminate many jobs. Progressive “independent” candidate Dan Osborn supports abolishing the filibuster, so that Democrats can pass left-wing legislation that previously was blocked after 40 or more senators voted to filibuster it. Kamala Harris also wants to abolish the filibuster so the Democrats can pass left-wing legislation.
Osborn is well to the left of past Democratic senators from Nebraska, like J. James Exon, who served in the Senate from 1979 to 1997. Osborn will push to pass legislation backed by left-wing labor leaders, like the PRO Act, which could wipe out millions of freelance jobs. Osborn’s web site says, “As a Senator, I’ll support: Passing the PRO Act.”
Two recent polls show progressive “independent” candidate Dan Osborn leading Republican Senator Deb Fischer, aided by the false assumption among voters that he is truly an independent. But as a progressive-leaning newspaper, The Hill, explains, Osborn is a Democrat in all but name:
Dan Osborn is classified as a Democrat in our model, even though he is running as an independent….He uses ActBlue for fundraising and has engaged with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee….the otherwise dormant Democratic Party has nearly unanimously supported his challenge to Republican dominance. Our Senate model assumes Osborn will caucus with the Democrats if elected. This assumption is a key factor in the math that determines the fight for a majority in the US Senate.
An October 1 poll by the Bullfinch Group shows Osborn leading Fischer by 5% (47% polled supported Osborn, while 42% supported Fischer).
A September 23 poll by Survey USA shows Osborn leading 45% to Fischer’s 44%.
Osborn is so left-wing that he called Senator Fischer’s staffers “Hitler Youth frat boys.”
Fischer has a mainstream conservative record, and is not nearly as conservative as Ron Johnson or Mike Lee, based on her voting record in the Senate. She is not far-right.
Osborn’s attack shows he views normal conservatives as right-wing nuts.
Fischer is no more conservative than the typical Nebraska Republican. If Osborn views people like Fischer and her staff as Nazis, then he may not be able to get along with normal Nebraskans, or properly represent them.
Osborn has apparently said he has no idea what farmers or ranchers do. Which would make him a bad fit for a farm state like Nebraska.
Once Democrats abolish the filibuster, as Osborn wants, they will pass the PRO Act, which is modeled on a California law that wiped out the jobs of hundreds of thousands of freelancers. Kamala Harris supports the PRO Act.
As an MSNBC article explains, the California law on which the PRO Act is modeled wiped out many jobs: “The law’s practical effect was to make freelance labor impractical. Overnight, independent writers, graphic designers, photographers, journalists and content producers found themselves unemployable. Local papers had to contract out of state to get the scoop on what was happening just next door. Music festivals ceased operations and performing arts groups went on hiatus.”
California eventually created exemptions to that law, AB5, but that still left much of the problem unfixed, and the PRO Act doesn’t include those fixes. As an article in The Hill explains:
Three years ago this month, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed California Assembly Bill 5 (AB5) into law, essentially outlawing freelance journalism and most other independent contracting. Opponents of the bill warned the law would devastate the longstanding careers of many independent businesspeople in the Golden State. Three years later, it’s clear the critics had it right: AB5 has proven to be among the most ill-conceived state labor policies in recent memory.
If AB5’s restrictions were limited to California, that would be bad enough. But the Biden administration appears determined to bring these destructive labor restrictions to the national stage in the form of the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (PRO Act). Policymakers should pay heed to the damage AB5 has wrought in California and stop this disastrous policy in its tracks.
AB5 created a three-part “ABC” test used to determine whether a worker is an independent contractor or employee. The key provision of the test is that anyone performing work within the “usual course of the hiring entity’s business” must be classified as an employee, rather than a contractor.
The outcome was predictable: Many businesses and nonprofit enterprises that relied on independent contractors stopped using those workers — both because workers who had built self-sufficient careers did not want to trade the freedom of freelance work for the false benefits of employment, and because many companies couldn’t afford to convert them to full-time employees.
Countless self-employed Californians suddenly lost work opportunities and faced steeply declining incomes. Making matters worse, AB5 took effect in January 2020, mere weeks before Newsom locked down the state in response to COVID-19. Just when Californians most needed the freedom and flexibility that independent contracting provides, they were frozen out of the labor market.
AB5’s opponents — an array of workers and groups who crossed partisan and ideological boundaries — begged the legislature to reconsider upending California’s freelance economy. Lawmakers handed out exemptions to the politically connected; union leaders were put in charge of deciding which professions got an exemption. Mostly, lawmakers ignored workers’ concerns. They passed the bill with dozens of exemptions, and when the dire consequence everyone predicted came to pass, the legislature added dozens more the following session.
AB5 is so cut through with exemptions, it is defined more by what it doesn’t apply to than what it does cover. The ABC test is a single section containing just 325 words. The dozens of exemptions to the test span 10 sections and include 6,902 words. There are now more than 75 exemptions to a law that was supposed to define labor rules for the entire state.
If Osborn were a centrist — rather than a leftist — he wouldn’t support getting rid of the filibuster to enable the Democrats to pass left-wing laws. The two moderate Democrats in the Senate — Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema — oppose abolishing the filibuster. But both of them are retiring from the Senate. There will be no moderate Democrats in the Senate, when the next Congress convenes. Senate Democrats will basically all be progressives in the Senate next year, with no hint of moderation.
