Nebraska Account. & Disclosure Comm. v. Skinner, 853 N.W.2d 1

The Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission charged Skinner and Tlustos for using NRPPD funds to purchase radio advertisements about wind energy, generation duplication, and rates.
NRPPD employees Skinner (general manager) and Tlustos (consumer services director) supervised and approved NRPPD radio ads; ads were public resources under their control.
Candidate Van Buskirk announced a candidacy for NRPPD Board; pre-election campaign activities were publicized locally, including wind-energy discussions.
During Oct 2010, NRPPD aired three radio ads; Van Buskirk’s campaign criticized NRPPD’s wind-energy stance, leading to complaints against Skinner and Tlustos.
A hearing officer found the ads were politically motivated campaigning against Van Buskirk; the Commission upheld and imposed penalties.
The district court reversed, vacating the penalties, and adopted a broad definition of campaigning that focused on express advocacy rather than intent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether public resources were used for campaigning	Skinner/Tlustos used NRPPD funds for campaigning against Van Buskirk.	Ads were informational, not campaigning; funding decisions were ordinary public communications.	Remanded to determine intent; potential violation depending on intent.
Whether the district court erred by misdefining campaigning	Statute § 49-14,101.02(2) prohibits use of public resources for campaigning, regardless of express advocacy.	Campaigning should be judged by express advocacy/issue-ad distinctions.	Correct approach is intent-based; remand to assess intent with complete factors.
Whether First Amendment considerations barred enforcement	Statute as applied to NRPPD speech could be unconstitutional.	Statute validity not properly challenged as applied; standing issues exist.	Constitutionality not decided; not necessary for remand; standing issues discussed.

J.P. v. Millard Public Schools, 285 Neb. 890 (2013) (standard of review for APA-aligned judgments)
AT&T Communications v. Nebraska Public Serv. Comm., 283 Neb. 204 (2012) (competent evidence standard; deference in agency review)
Vokal v. Nebraska Account. & Disclosure Comm., 276 Neb. 988 (2009) (strict construction of penal statutes; interpret purpose)
Gibbs Cattle Co. v. Bixler, 285 Neb. 952 (2013) (legislative intent from statute language)
State ex rel. Grams v. Beach, 243 Neb. 126 (1993) (interpretation of statutory language; avoid superfluous words)
Vargas v. City of Salinas, 46 Cal.4th 1 (2009) (informational vs. campaign activity; care and consideration factors)
State v. Knutson, N.W.2d _ (2014) (case framework for joined proceedings? (referenced))