Monday, May 14, 2012
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Click to listen to the podcast from Tuesday, March 27th of Brett's conversation with Crash Davis on KFAB.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Saturday, March 10, 2012
NEBRASKA | DISTRICT 2 | 2012
East: Omaha and suburbs
Rep. Lee Terry
Last Incumbent Percentage: 61%
Last Incumbent Percentage: 61%
John Ewing, Douglas County Treasurer (1)
Gwen Howard (D) state Sen. (1)
Brett Lindstrom, frmr. Nebraska quarterback, financial adviser (1)
March 8, 2012
Terry took just 63 percent of the vote against an underfunded primary opponent in 2010, and former Nebraska backup quarterback Brett Lindstrom is running, hoping to cast the incumbent as a DC insider.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Click the title link above to read about Brett in the Sunday, February 5th edition of the Omaha World Herald. He has raised more money by more individual donors than any of Rep. Terry's current or past GOP Primary challengers.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
For Immediate Release:
Contact: Randi Scott or Micayla Lee
Lindstrom for Congress
Let’s Audit The Fed
Omaha, NE – January 11, 2012 – With the national debt skyrocketing above $15 trillion, our 2nd District representative, Lee Terry, astonishingly insists that Nebraskans must be punished for Congress’s ineptitude. In a recent World-Herald article, Mr. Terry tepidly asserts that, because Congress has failed in its duty to reach a budgetary consensus, consequences must be felt. “Otherwise the message to the people is: Failure has no consequence” (http://www.omaha.com/article/
20111122/NEWS01/711229905# some-lawmakers-not-fighting- cuts). Coming from Congressman Terry, this statement is somewhat perplexing – not to mention hypocritical – given that he voted to bail out those financial institutions that were deemed “too big to fail” back in 2008 to the tune of more than $700 billion. Why must the people invariably suffer while corporate lobbyists and big banks line their pockets with taxpayer money? It is shameful that Lee Terry places his narrow self-interests ahead of his constituents. But, it is not surprising given the congressman’s long tenure in Washington.
While Congressman Terry is one of many Washington insiders that has contributed a great deal to this country’s economic malaise, the Lindstrom campaign recognizes that other entities are also at fault. In particular, we take issue with the Federal Reserve and the remarkable lack of oversight that Congress has chosen to exert over this body. In a limited GAO audit (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/
d11696.pdf), it was determined that, over the course of the last four years, the Federal Reserve has doled out more than $16.1 trillion in taxpayer funds to banks that were “too big to fail” – an amount that exceeds our current national debt by more than $1 trillion! Even more shocking is that close to $3.1 trillion of this bailout money went to foreign-owned banks. And, to add insult to injury, according to a recent Bloomberg article, the Fed provided short-term, 28-day loans to these institutions at a rate of 1.1 percent – well below the standard rate of 3.8 percent that banks were charging each other to make similar monthly loans at the time (http://www.bloomberg.com/ news/2011-08-21/wall-street- aristocracy-got-1-2-trillion- in-fed-s-secret-loans.html).
If this information was found in a partial audit, just imagine what might be discovered in a full and complete audit of the Federal Reserve. We need representatives in Congress that favor full financial disclosure – not representatives who like to spend our money with little to no oversight. We must get our financial house in order, and this starts with voting out the current batch of status-quo politicians and replacing them with a new group of representatives who possess courage, conviction, and leadership. Brett Lindstrom is the only candidate in the 2ndDistrict who has the requisite financial and leadership experience to usher in this new era of transparency. Brett opposes all government bailouts, and he will sponsor legislation that calls for a comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve. Congress has ignored the American people for far too long. Isn’t it time to restore some fiscal transparency and bring some sanity back to Washington?
Friday, December 30, 2011
Monday, December 19, 2011
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
BRETT LINDSTROM: NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT INFRINGES UPON OUR PERSONAL FREEDOMS
Omaha, NE (December 19, 2011)---The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), supported by Congressman Terry, will give the Federal Government authority to detain Americans indefinitely without charge and without trial, a move that could set a terrible precedent.
This was sold to the public as a way to combat domestic terrorism but that is not what the bill states. Section 1031 of the NDAA bill states that a person can be detained indefinitely for a “belligerent act,” a vague definition that could lead to arbitrary enforcement. This bill concedes far too much power to the Executive Branch, allowing dangerous encroachments on American’s fundamental rights. It also goes so far as to eliminate the Posse Comitatus Act that ensures our military cannot be used domestically against Americans. If the purpose of this bill is truly to protect our country against terroristic threats, then the language of the bill must be specific or we risk losing one of the most fundamental rights that Americans cherish, freedom.
Terry’s support of this bill, in addition to his recent support of both the Mobile Information Call Act and the Stop Online Piracy Act, demonstrates a troubling trend of disregard for our individual freedoms.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Please click the link to hear Brett's interview: http://www.kfab.com/player/?station=KFAB-AM&program_name=podcast&program_id=ScottVoorhees.xml&mid=21662219
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
The generation that will pay
MILLENNIALS | Millennials, frustrated with the nation's debt and spending but juggling babies and law school, are taking action: They're running for Congress |Emily Belz
Ricky Gill wasn't like other 17-year-olds. In 2004, instead of goofing around after school, he was the one public high school student in California the governor selected to serve on the state board of education. Now, as a 24-year-old, he is running for Congress-while going to law school. The minimum age to be a member of the House is 25; Gill, a Republican, will turn 25 in May 2012, one month before the primary.
"A lot of people think I'm young now, and I wouldn't contest that, but I was really young then," he said, thinking of his teenage term on the school board. The years between that stint of public service and congressional candidacy have been filled with work on his family's vineyard, college at Princeton University, a summer on Capitol Hill, studies at the University of California at Berkeley law school, and serving as legal counsel for the Oakland A's. Gill is the youngest of three brothers in a family of first-generation immigrants. His parents are physicians, his father from Uganda, his mother from India. Both came to the United States as adults.
The average age in Congress is 57. But a striking number of millennials-the generation aged roughly between 20 and 30 years old-have filed to run for House seats in 2012. A rash of long-shot candidates pop up every election cycle, but these youngsters-who are filing early and forgoing conventional paths to Congress like time in a state legislature, or a few more years between college graduation and a House campaign-may actually win, given the record frustration voters are voicing toward incumbents. The young candidates would form a second wave of generational newcomers following the young Republicans elected in 2010, about a half dozen members now in their early thirties.
Gill is challenging three-term Democratic Rep. Jerry McNerney, 60, in California's newly drawn 9th Congressional District, a competitive seat representing the mostly agricultural San Joaquin Valley that The Cook Political Report says leans Democratic.
Thanks to redistricting, McNerney found himself living outside the district (he currently serves in the state's 11th Congressional District), while Gill has grown up in it. (McNerney says he plans to move to the district.) Gill also has raised $756,000, according to the Federal Election Commission, $115,000 more than McNerney-a potentially major indicator of the candidate's viability. As a result, the National Republican Congressional Committee has named him in its "Young Guns" program for up-and-coming candidates who have met certain benchmarks-and its chairman, Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, reportedly emails Gill every day to check on the race.
Millennials aren't very good at turning out for elections, but they backed President Barack Obama by a 2-to-1 margin in the 2008 election. Their political angst has found its most recently visible expression in the Occupy Wall Street protests, yet the majority of 20-somethings who have filed to run for Congress so far are Republicans.
The candidates I interviewed said they didn't feel that their generation's interests had representation in Congress. The "youth unemployment" rate (16- to 24-year-olds) is 18.1 percent, according to the Department of Labor, and the share of young people who are employed is at its lowest level on record. The millennial generation expects to bear the brunt of entitlement cuts, and very few expect to receive Social Security benefits at all. Twenty-somethings face a difficult credit market, where securing a mortgage is not a given, and they usually emerge from college with significant debt as college tuition has soared.
The anecdotal stories from young congressional candidates parallel recent polling data from Generation Opportunity (see sidebar below), an organization that studies millennials and the economy. Sixty-nine percent of millennials said political leaders do not reflect the interests of young Americans. Sixty-six percent are "deeply concerned" about the national debt, and 76 percent said they would like to see a reduction in federal spending. (That, however, contrasts with a study on millennials that the Pew Research Center conducted this year that showed only 35 percent of millennials favored smaller government.) The researchers also found 69 percent of millennials prefer cutting federal spending to raising taxes to balance the budget.
Paul Conway, former chief of staff at the Labor Department during the Bush administration, heads up Generation Opportunity, and he analyzed some of the results of the poll. "We have a generation now who has gone through a tremendous amount," he said, citing 9/11, two wars, and economic collapse. "They see less in their wallet, they see their own friends unemployed, and feel they can't make payments into their future."
Twenty-four-year-old Weston Wamp believes, "The debt-paying generation will rise to the occasion in this country." Wamp is running for a seat in eastern Tennessee once held by his father, eight-term Republican Rep. Zach Wamp. The elder Wamp made an unsuccessful bid for governor of Tennessee in 2010, and Republican Chuck Fleischmann won the seat Wamp vacated.
Wamp started his own marketing firm in Chattanooga, Tenn., after graduating from the University of Tennessee in 2009. He works about half time on his business and half time on his campaign. He will turn the qualifying age of 25 in March 2012. Wamp denied that he feels entitled to his dad's seat, but said that he absorbed political knowledge and wisdom by growing up around his dad and his dad's friends. "[Republican Sen. Tom] Coburn is like an uncle to me," Wamp said. "Frankly, I think they need some reinforcements from our generation?...?the framers of the Constitution made the age 25 for a reason."
Wamp's contention with Fleischmann is that he votes along party lines. Fleischmann has voted with his party 95 percent of the time, but he bucked Republican leadership on at least one major vote, casting a "no" on the debt ceiling deal along with 65 of the more conservative members of the House. "Another thing our generation has to bring to the table is a willingness to work across party lines," Wamp said, though "not compromise for the sake of compromise." Bipartisanship is only imagined on Capitol Hill right now, but it's an aspiration shared by other millennial candidates. Brett Lindstrom, 30, running as a Republican for a seat in Nebraska, commented, "You do have to work across party lines?...?I'm more than happy to listen to Democrats' ideas."
Gill and Wamp are bachelors, but others like Lindstrom are married and brand new fathers. On average, millennials may be delaying life decisions like marriage, but Lindstrom said almost all of his friends are married: "Maybe it's partly the Midwest." Two years ago he and his wife Leigh received invitations to 17 weddings in one year, and "now we're all having kids at the same time."
Lindstrom, who was a quarterback for the University of Nebraska Cornhuskers, finds little time to sleep between his regular job as a financial adviser, the campaign, and caring for his 4-month-old daughter. Lindstrom's wife also works full-time, while family members help care for their baby during the day. "It sounds like it's crazy, but it's not undoable," Lindstrom said. He admits he and his wife have had some "discussions" about balancing the campaign with a new baby, and related lack of sleep.
On the campaign trail he's taken part in seven parades so far, and he's learning to be more comfortable approaching people in a café and introducing himself. When he's not campaigning or being a father, his role as a financial adviser has him working with retirees who he says are often as fearful of their economic future as his generation is. "The generation above us, they haven't been very good stewards of [public] money," he said.
On the other side of the country, another sleep-deprived father of a 5-month-old is running for Congress. Evan Feinberg, 27, moved his young family back to his roots near Pittsburgh, Pa., to run in the primary against Rep. Tim Murphy, whom Feinberg terms an "Arlen Specter Republican."
Feinberg, a Grove City College graduate, worked at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., and then on the staff of Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. His wife Sarah is an officer in the Marine Corps Reserves and an Iraq War veteran. Aside from working on Capitol Hill, Feinberg's political experience is limited to chairing the College Republicans, but he brushes off criticisms about his young age, calling it an "asset." "[Murphy]'s going to have the bigger problem convincing folks that his age and experience qualify him for serving in Washington," Feinberg said.
But the question of experience is a serious one. Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., won his seat one week after his 29th birthday, and for his first two terms he was the youngest member of Congress. He's in his fourth term now. Even though McHenry was young when he came into office, he had already served as an assistant to Labor Secretary Elaine Chao during the Bush administration and served a term in the North Carolina General Assembly.
"You have to have some amount of experience to be effective," McHenry said. "It's the nature of the world-you have to prove yourself as a young person no matter what career path you choose." He ticked off the 30-somethings who won seats in the 2010 election and their political experience: 35-year-old Rep. Martha Roby, R-Ala., served on the Montgomery city council; 39-year-old Rep. Tom Reed, R-N.Y., was mayor of Corning, N.Y.; and others served in state legislatures. (He added that starting a business and starting a family are good experience, too.) McHenry is glad to have some other younger colleagues now. "You have more 30-somethings on the Republican side than I think we've ever had," he said. As a result of the 2010 elections, the average age of House Republicans dropped from 56.5 to 54.9, while the average age of House Democrats rose from 58 to 60.2.
"While some may question the credibility of millennials on things, that's what the campaign process is about," said Generation Opportunity's Conway. "But as a nation, we don't question the credibility of someone who is 17 or 18 years old who signs up to fight for our country."
Fresh from the battlefield of the financial sector, Ethan Wingfield, 26, is running as a Republican against Democratic Rep. Heath Shuler in western North Carolina. Wingfield, born and raised in Shuler's district, left North Carolina to attend Brown University.
In 2006, his senior year, Wingfield was president of Brown's Reformed University Fellowship (RUF), a student ministry affiliated with the Presbyterian Church in America, when Brown suspended the organization, saying the 200-member group maintained a "culture of contempt and dishonesty." Wingfield and RUF eventually took Brown's action to the press, and after a six-month dispute, the university restored the student ministry's membership. Wingfield graduated, started his own technology company, sold it, and joined Capital One, where he rose to become an adviser to the CEO. Since then he and his wife Jacqueline have moved back to North Carolina, and he is about to formally kick off his campaign.
Three-term congressman Shuler has an uphill battle for reelection, since the Republican state legislature is enacting redistricting that will cut out much of his Democratic support. The Republican primary roster has started to fill with challengers.
Unlike most candidates, Wingfield doesn't gloss over the work ahead: "Primarying or running in a general against an incumbent is a really tough way to win." But he knows other facts: Some counties in western North Carolina are dealing with unemployment percentages in the double digits. "I look around at my peers and my friends I grew up with, and they're really struggling," he said. "You used to be able to go to school, graduate, work hard, buy a house, settle down, have a kid. That American dream seems to be disintegrating before our eyes."
Capital One, notes Wingfield, did not take any federal bailouts, and added thousands of jobs while the rest of the economy was shrinking. He thinks the federal government could learn about budgeting from the private sector. Wingfield wants to take on another congressional practice-budgeting via emergency spending legislation that's effective for a few months rather than passing an actual budget for a fiscal year.
"As a young person, I'm free to take a 50-year time horizon, because I'm going to live in that world," Wingfield said. "Being a finance person, from a fiscal perspective, I think we are way closer to the edge than most people realize.?...?I really do think that we have a limited window of time to make serious changes. If I wait 10 or 20 years to do it, I think that window would have passed. Why not do it now?"
MILLENNIALS | The views of Millennials, according to the Generation Opportunity Poll
AMERICA AND OPPORTUNITY:
. 54% believe America is on the wrong track, only 24 percent believe the United States is headed in the right direction.
. 77% of respondents (18-29) are delaying major life changes due to economic restraints.
. 54% agree they have "more opportunity" than their parents, and 27 percent think their children will have less.
. 56% agree with "American Exceptionalism," and over half indicated they are not optimistic about the country's future.
. 56% believe the wrong leadership is in Washington and 61 percent will vote on a candidate's record, not charisma.
. 31% of those 18-29 approve of Obama's handling of youth unemployment.
. 57% said they will learn more about the policy positions of presidential candidates in 2012 than they did in 2008.
. 69% say political leaders do NOT reflect the interests of young Americans.
Greatest threats to national security:
- National Debt (62 percent),
- Energy Dependency (61 percent)
- Indebtedness to Foreign Powers (50 percent)
. 70% (net) would increase production of domestic energy sources like oil.
. 80% view China as a danger: economic threat (48 percent), both economic and military threat (28 percent), and military alone (4 percent).
. 22% (net) would decrease production of domestic energy sources like oil, natural gas, and coal.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Omaha, Ne (November 12, 2011)—Once again, Congressman Lee Terry has inexplicably flip-flopped on an important issue. This time it is in regards to getting our country’s unsustainable spending under control. In a recent letter to Congress's "super committee," he called for a litany of damaging tax increases to get our financial house in order. It is inexcusable that this call comes just a few months after he voted to increase the federal deficit without addressing meaningful spending cuts. It was then that we had the best chance to truly rein in excessive government spending. We conservatives pleaded with our representatives in Congress, including Congressman Terry, to stand strong against Democrats and to vote against a debt ceiling increase until out-of control government spending was addressed. Instead of holding strong and fighting for conservative values, he once again folded and is now pushing the responsibility off onto someone else.
Right before the critical debt-ceiling vote, Congressman Terry stated that a balanced budget amendment was crucial in order to get his vote for the increase. This amendment did not make the final cut, yet Terry voted to raise the debt ceiling anyway. Moreover, the final deal that did pass failed to address the spending cuts that the credit agencies stated were necessary to avert a downgrade. Only after his vote resulted in the downgrading of our credit rating for the first time in American history and the super committee was formed did Terry push for the needed spending cuts.
When asked to comment on Mr. Terry's recent actions 2nd Congressional District candidate Brett Lindstrom stated, "The real way to get our fiscal house in order is to seriously address welfare reform and stop using programs like Social Security as a slush fund without replenishing what was borrowed. We also need to end government bailouts and remove the term 'too big to fail' from our vernacular. I applaud those groups that have had the courage to question Congressman Terry's so-called conservative values. I have consistently shown that I am the principled, steadfast conservative leader needed to replace Lee Terry in Congress. I have not backed down when questioned by those who support Congressman Terry, and will always put Nebraskans first even if that puts me at odds with the Republican Party base. I am a problem-solver. America is in the midst of a very large and real fiscal problem and I have the tools necessary to solve it. I can make a difference now and that is what I intend to do. When elected to Congress, I will provide the consistent conservative leadership the voters of Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District deserve."
Brett Lindstrom is challenging Congressman Lee Terry for the Republican nomination in Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District. Brett is a financial advisor from Omaha where he lives with his family. For more information please go to www.lindstromforcongress.com
Monday, October 10, 2011
For the first time in 235 years of our country’s existence our generation will have the shameful distinction of leaving our children worse off than we are. When we hand over the keys to tomorrow's leaders, we will have to do it with a sense of humility because we could not follow the simplest of rules as stewards of this great nation: “Do no harm."
As a new father, I have become acutely aware of the very distinctly American virtue of always wanting your children to have a better lot in life than you. If your child does better, it is perceived as a direct reflection of your success as a parent and a source of pride. Sadly, it will be much more difficult for the next generation to surpass our generation in terms of success. What has happened on Capitol Hill over the last several years is nothing short of intergenerational theft. Our political system and, by extension, our politicians have seen fit to give away the farm to curry favor and buy votes through empty promises they cannot keep nor afford. The worst part is that we as voters have allowed it to occur because in some cases we were the benefactors of the perceived government generosity. Unfortunately, the consequences of those actions will be borne by our children and our children's children.
The concept of the American Dream, which was once the catalyst to our nation's success, has been diminished. The American Dream was attainable by those who would go the extra mile and those who would fight with every fiber of their being to obtain a piece of it. Now, after years of raising entitled generations, the American Dream is no longer something to strive for, rather it is something expected to be given out to all. We have created a welfare and dependent state that expects things to be handed out in lieu of becoming self-reliant.
Making people reliant, and in some cases utterly dependent on the government, is great for politicians to get votes, but now as the costs of those promises are mounting up, we are currently reaping what we have sown.
The ongoing debate over both our debt and the solution to our fiscal crisis is America’s proverbial fork in the road. Our choices are clear: do we empower future generations to be self-reliant and self-sufficient or do we continue to expand government because we feel our citizens are unable to take care of themselves? Do we actually believe government is better suited to meet our citizens’ needs than they themselves are?
Americans have a second chance to right the ship. We have on our hands nothing short of a fiscal calamity that will require a tremendous amount of political courage to meaningfully tackle the very real problems we face. We can no longer kick the can and ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room (out of control government spending).
There are two schools of thought on how to solve the deficit and spending problems. The left would like you to believe that the best way to fix a leaky bucket is to add more water to it, i.e. raising taxes. The "right “solution is to fix the hole in the bucket first by meaningfully addressing spending. We cannot realistically think that we are going to decrease the deficit by simply cutting discretionary spending which constitutes only 19% of federal outlays. All areas of the budget should be up for consideration. It is time politicians become less concerned with political self-preservation and become more concerned with making the tough decisions their constituents elected them to make. If there was ever a time to stop telling people what they want to hear and to start telling them what they need to hear, that time is now.
I reflect daily on how truly blessed and fortunate I am to be born in this great nation. Conservatives need to take a stance and be on the right side of history. We all need to find our internal fortitude to demand more of ourselves and our elected officials in order to face this nation's financial woes head on. If you are truly passionate like I am about what it means to be an American, then we need to hold ourselves and our elected officials accountable. We need to ensure the essence of the American ideology is preserved as our Founding Fathers intended it to be. Let us continue to lead the world with American Exceptionalism. After all, as President Reagan most aptly put it, America is truly "a shining city on a hill."
Monday, October 3, 2011
Omaha, NE (October 3, 2011)— Republican 2nd Congressional District Candidate Brett Lindstrom has received a national endorsement from the conservative group, Can-Do Conservatives. The Can-Do Conservatives of America is the nation's first Conservative political organization representing Americans with disabilities. They are dedicated to giving Americans with disabilities a voice in the Conservative movement, advocating for policies that will put an end to the vicious cycle of government dependence, and supporting Conservative candidates that support these policies and will fight to carry them out.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Press Release: What Lee Terry Doesn't Want You To Know About Corporate Lobbyists & The "Keystone Kickback"
For Immediate Release:
Contact: Randi Scott or Micayla Lee
Lindstrom for Congress
What Lee Terry Doesn't Want You To Know About Corporate Lobbyists & The "Keystone Kickback"
Omaha, NE -September 27, 2011 - In Lee Terry's long career as a Washington politician he has generally maintained a low profile. That is, until the introduction of H.R. 1938, affectionately known to many Nebraskans as the Keystone XL Pipeline bill. What is it that has Mr. Terry so gung-ho about speeding up TransCanada's agenda? Is it TransCanada's facetious promise to create thousands of jobs for working Nebraskans? No, because the State Department estimates that any job growth would be minimal.
In fact, the real reason that Lee Terry introduced a bill to expedite the Keystone XL Pipeline has little to do with serving ordinary Nebraskans, as numerous state and local officials - including Nebraska's governor - have questioned various elements of the pipeline project. It has everything to do with someone who is unequivocally beholden to corporate lobbyists and special interests.
As Mr. Terry's record indicates, he has taken tens of thousands of dollars in campaign kickbacks from special interests who are now lobbying on behalf of the Keystone XL Pipeline bill. These registered lobbyists and their corresponding contributions to Lee Terry over the last two election cycles include: the AFL-CIO ($1,000 during the 2012 election cycle), the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association ($7,500 during the 2012 election cycle and $10,000 during the 2010 election cycle), Chevron Corp.($1,000 during the 2012 election cycle and $4,000 during the 2010 election cycle), and Exxon Mobil ($7,000 during the 2010 election cycle). Lee Terry even took a $2,000 contribution during the 2010 election cycle from the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, which has since lauded him in a September 14, 2011 press release on the Keystone XL Pipeline for his part in pushing their myopic agenda.
But the tainted trail of special interest money does not end here. Lee Terry has also received generous individual contributions from oil-industry executives over the last two election cycles: $2,400 from the chairman of the MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co.; $1,000 from the president of Exxon Mobil; two $1,000 contributions from a Hunt Oil executive; a $1,000 contribution from the TexasUtilities Co.'s chairman; $1,000 from Roxanna Oil Co.'s chairman; $500 from the division director at Macquarie Energy. And the list goes on.
Most revealing, however, are Lee Terry's incontrovertible ties to TransCanada, the corporation tasked with completing the Keystone XL Pipeline. As the record indicates, TransCanada employs four lobbying firms to represent its interests: Bryan Cave LLP,McKenna, Long, & Aldridge, TransCanada Pipelines, and Van Ness Feldman. Of these four lobbying groups, three have a direct or indirect association with the Obama administration and the fourth - Van Ness Feldman - contributed $2,000 to Lee Terry's campaign during the 2010 election cycle. In the presence of these cold, hard facts, Mr. Terry's recent dalliance with Keystone XL special interest groups, especially those groups linked to the Obama administration, should be substantial cause for alarm among Nebraska voters and conservatives especially.