Op-ed: Nebraska's Board of Regents is nonpartisan. Voters deserve the full picture

Lincoln Journal Star | October 25, 2026

By Tom Nesbitt

The University of Nebraska Board of Regents is a nonpartisan office. Candidates do not run with a political party designation beside their names, and that is intentional. The university should be governed with the interests of students, taxpayers, faculty and the state of Nebraska placed ahead of partisan politics.

Brent Comstock, a candidate for the District 1 seat on the Board of Regents, has emphasized that point himself. In the Nebraska Examiner voter guide, Comstock said, “This is a nonpartisan role, and it should stay that way.”

I agree.

But if voters are being asked to evaluate candidates for a nonpartisan office, they should also have the opportunity to examine each candidate’s complete public record.

In Comstock’s case, that record includes years of documented involvement with Democratic Party organizations, Democratic candidates and Democratic political campaigns.

This is not speculation. It comes from public records.

Nebraska Democratic Party records show that Comstock was appointed to the party’s Technology Committee in 2018. By December of that year, party documents identified him as chairman of the committee. The committee was responsible for reviewing technology proposals, overseeing technology security and making recommendations for the Nebraska Democratic Party.

His involvement continued well beyond that position.

Nebraska Democratic Party materials from 2020 promoted candidate webinars sponsored by Comstock’s company, BCom, and identified him as a resource for areas including digital fundraising, email, graphics and campaign communications.

More recently, the Nebraska Democratic Party’s November 2025 State Central Committee materials identified Comstock as a trainer in its candidate-training program. His session addressed communications and messaging for candidates, including campaign themes, digital advertising, email programs, websites, social media, palm cards and mail programs.

That is significant political involvement, not merely registering with one party or occasionally supporting a candidate.

Comstock has also publicly described himself as having served on the National Finance Committee for the Harris presidential campaign in 2024. He has said publicly that he “proudly worked” on Ken Martin’s campaign to become chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

His company’s political work provides additional context.

Federal campaign-finance data show substantial payments to BCom Solutions from Democratic federal campaigns. During the 2024 election cycle, records compiled from Federal Election Commission data show approximately $280,000 in payments from Connolly for Congress and approximately $236,000 from Swalwell for Congress to BCom Solutions.

BCom’s own materials have highlighted political work for Democratic attorneys general and other Democratic candidates involving digital fundraising, email development, voter communications and political strategy.

None of that means a person who has worked extensively with Democratic candidates or organizations is legally prohibited from seeking a nonpartisan office. Of course not.

Nor does it mean that providing professional services to political campaigns is somehow improper.

That is not my point.

The issue is transparency and context.

When a candidate emphasizes the nonpartisan nature of the office, voters should have enough information to evaluate the candidate’s political history for themselves.

That becomes particularly relevant because the Nebraska Democratic Party currently lists Comstock on its 2026 candidate page under the Board of Regents, identifying him as “Brent Comstock (Independent).”

Again, there is nothing unlawful about receiving support from a political party in a nonpartisan race. But voters deserve to know it is happening.

The Board of Regents will make decisions affecting billions of dollars in university resources, tuition, academic programs, leadership, facilities and the direction of Nebraska’s public university system.

Those responsibilities are too important for voters to make their decisions based solely on campaign advertising, labels or carefully worded descriptions of political independence.

I am not asking voters to reject Brent Comstock merely because he has worked with Democrats.

I am asking voters to look at the entire record.

Comstock is running for a nonpartisan office and describes the position as one that should remain nonpartisan. At the same time, public records document years of involvement in Nebraska Democratic Party infrastructure, Democratic candidate training, Democratic campaign consulting and national Democratic political activity. His company has received substantial payments for work performed for Democratic campaigns, and the Nebraska Democratic Party currently includes him among the candidates it is promoting in 2026.

Those facts are not mutually exclusive. But neither should one side of that record be presented while the other is ignored.

The University of Nebraska belongs to all Nebraskans — Republicans, Democrats, independents and those with no political affiliation at all.

Voters should expect transparency from anyone seeking to govern it.

The public record is available.

Voters can decide for themselves what it means.

Tom Nesbitt is a retired Colonel and Superintendent of the Nebraska State Patrol and a Lincoln-area business owner.