— Peter Sterne (@petersterne) October 5, 2015
From the Washington Post article:
… Fiorina has emerged in recent weeks as a top-tier candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, impressing voters with a pair of crisp debate performances and a promise to put her bottom-line inclination as a Fortune 50 chief executive to fix a broken Washington. But that fiscal sensibility was largely absent from Fiorina’s other run for office — a quixotic and unsuccessful attempt to unseat longtime Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).
In more than two dozen interviews, staff members, friends, contractors and operatives who worked on Fiorina’s 2010 campaign singled out one big problem: how the team managed its cash….
Those who waited the longest to be paid were small businesses with a few dozen employees who did the grunt work of the campaign: building stages, sending out mailers, selling polling data. And at least one is still waiting…
“People are just upset and angry and throwing her under the bus,” said Jon Cross, Fiorina’s operations director for her Senate campaign. “If we didn’t win, why do you deserve to get paid? If you don’t succeed in business, you shouldn’t be the first one to step up and complain about getting paid.”…
Olivia Nuzzi, at the Daily Beast, has another intriguing investigation of Fiorina’s “campaign” finances:
… “Through the Fiorina Foundation, she has given to dozens of charities, including those that support veterans, education and their local community,” Flores said.
Asked to name the charities, she said, “It’s a lot of charities and I’m not going to release names which will cause a headache for some of the smaller organizations.”
Asked to at least specify how many charities there are, she said, “I’d just say dozens. I don’t have an exact number.”
There are, Cantor explained, a few reasons why someone might like the anonymity a donor-advised fund provides. “She may be very generous and we don’t know it, or she may have not given any money out of her fund but got the charitable deduction [anyway], or she may have given to organizations she would rather not be associated with.”…
But then, as Jeb Lund explains in the Guardian, “Carly Fiorina can’t win, but she can help the men of the party hurt Clinton“:
… Carly Fiorina is running for president now – and in this senselessly, agonizingly protracted campaign, she can probably keep running for months – but in the long run she will be most likely be running as cover for the retributive, punitive, invariably masculine rhetoric of movement conservatism.
Being used as their cover is the best, most profitable thing that Fiorina can do in the long run, both to advance her party’s interests and guarantee her a lifetime of ample speaker’s fees on the big-business and wingnut welfare talk circuit. Maybe, in the short term, she’ll be rewarded with a cabinet position or a vice presidential nod, but neither would be as lucrative as putting a “legitimizing” female stamp of endorsement on systemic anti-women policies.
Instead, ironically, her story of the “secretary-to-CEO” will wind up being a lot more like a secretary than Madame Secretary. In effect, either by appearances on the news or by taking the form of an endlessly exculpatory feminine rescue quote, her job will eventually be to convey to the people asking hard questions the unpleasant news that the men behind the closed doors will not be able to address them, but, in their absence, here is what they wanted to say.