Carly Fiorina

Carly Fiorina Slams Donald Trump for His Crony Capitalism and Eminent Domain Abuse

Says Trump "engaged in crony capitalism in its most raw and abusive form."


Credit: Gage Skidmore /

Last week Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina appeared on The Federalist Radio Hour for a discussion about politics and the 2016 White House race. In response to a question posed by fellow guest Betsy Woodruff of the Daily Beast, Fiorina had the following to say about Donald Trump's recent glowing endorsement of Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court's controversial 2005 ruling on eminent domain:

I think Donald Trump, among others, has engaged in crony capitalism in its most raw and abusive form. When commercial interests get together with government to take away private property for their own commercial interests, that's a big problem. And I think I join so many conservatives in saying that eminent domain has been abused. And it has been abused by the collusion between governments eager for revenue and businesses eager for competitive advantage. So I find the Kelo case—if ever there was a case for judicial engagement instead of judicial restraint, it's this set of issues.

Fiorina is exactly right. In 1994 Trump got together with government officials in Atlantic City, New Jersey, in a shameful attempt to seize the home of an elderly widow in order make room for a limousine parking lot for the Trump Plaza hotel and casino. It was a textbook example of eminent domain abuse and "crony capitalism in its most raw and abusive form."

Fiorina is also right about Kelo. According to the author of that regrettable decision, Justice John Paul Stevens, "Kelo adhered to the doctrine of judicial restraint, which allows state legislatures broad latitude in making economic policy decisions in their respective jurisdictions." Thanks to Stevens' judicial restraint, Connecticut officials got the green light to bulldoze a well-tended working-class neighborhood on behalf of a speculative redevelopment scheme that turned out to be an utter failure. As Fiorina correctly observed, the Supreme Court should have enforced the terms of the Constitution in that case, not bent over backwards in deference to the government.

NEXT: Troops Staying in Afghanistan, Troops Going to Cameroon, Secret Drone Documents Leaked: A.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. Butterface?

  1. Did Carly cop a plea to her own cronyism at HP and Lucent?

    1. Cite? I’m honestly curious.

      1. Seriously, in what way was Carly a crony capitalist at those companies. I mean, unusually so, because its nearly impossible to be a successful capitalist these days without getting some crony in your hair.

  2. I know Reasonoids, with good reason, have a lot against her, but she’s spot on some of these issues.

    1. Yep. I don’t vote, but if Carly gets the nomination, I may actually sign up and vote for her. She is significantly less horrible than many other options.

    2. Yep. I don’t vote, but if Carly gets the nomination, I may actually sign up and vote for her. She is significantly less horrible than many other options.

  3. Carly Fiorina Slams Donald Trump for His Crony Capitalism and Eminent Domain Abuse

    Like, with a chair? On the ground?

    1. I would vote for her if she’d go all WWF on The Donald with a folding chair. That would be AWESOME.

      Pretty sure she could take him…

      1. Here she is, having a tustle with DT’s wig.


        1. You sure that’s not her brushing her own hoo ha?


  4. I agree with her, it’s a big problem. Here is another example, one of many, using crony capitalism:

    “Property owners along the MinnCan oil pipeline route say the process has been rife with confusion and the erosion of property rights…Planned is 24-inch MinnCan pipeline, proposed by a subsidiary of Koch Industries (Minnesota Pipeline Company) will initially carry about 100,000 42-gallon barrels of oil daily from Canada to Minnesota.”…..d23cbd7c7f

    Of course, maybe she wants donations from those crony capitalists.

    1. Perhaps you could provide a story that indicates what actually happened in the last 8 years instead of what might have happened 8 years ago.

      1. … instead of what might have been going to happen as of 8 years ago.

        I think. This is stretching the limits of my grammatical ability.

        1. That highlights Fiorina’s hypocrisy? Sure. She supports Keystone, which is using eminent domain. In fact, here is an article from Keystone titled “why eminent domain is important and appropriate.”


          1. No, about the story you posted.

            1. What I posted was a comment about her hypocrisy and I cited an example of that. And now I posted another one.

              1. You did not cite anything of any substance. I asked you to provide additional detail. You have refused to do so.

                1. Both were of substance.

                  1. A speculative story from 8 years ago with no follow-up and an opinion piece by the Keystone XL foundation is “substance”?

                    Well, then let’s talk “substance” about taxes, regulation, and uses of eminent domain outside of pipelines. All of which you support for the “right” reasons. Who’s the hypocrite?

                    1. You, of course, along with Fiorina.

                    2. Why don’t you just do what I fucking told you to at the beginning and find some follow up on the original story?

                      Jesus Christ are you mendacious.

                    3. Jesus Christ are you mendacious.

                      I’m gonna go with “retarded”.

                    4. Its funnier if you spell, and say, it with a U. Returded.

                      Just sayin’.

                    5. “Returded” – heh!

                      Is that when you have to take another dump even though you just took a dump?

                      Yeah – that works, too.

                    6. Relax there, big fella. You would be the one of the last I take orders from.

                    7. You would be the one of the last I take orders from.

                      Yeah, it might elevate you to the level of intellectual honesty.

          2. But since you’re going to change the subject anyway, I find this amusing:

            “Building energy infrastructure requires cooperation” (from your link)

            Isn’t this the stock argument lefties give for taxes and regulation? Building infrastructure and civilization requires “cooperation” (= compliance extracted by force), right?

            1. Your selective outrage at the use of eminent domain is typical. You just have no complaint when it’s crony capitalism you like.

              1. Find somewhere I’ve endorsed the pipeline’s use of eminent domain. I’ll wait.

          3. That’s why there’s eminent domain abuse, & proper use of eminent domain. To lay down something long & thin, like a pipe, eminent domain is quite appropriate. Of course even appropriate eminent domain may be carried out in an abusive manner.

    2. I read it and don’t see any mention of government involvement in the process, other than the utility commission, and no allegations of collusion between the commission and MinnCan. Also not mention of threats of the use of eminent domain. So what is your point other than your usual cries of environmental desecration and KOOOOOOOOCH!

      1. From my experience in RE Development, when a “public comment period” is held, typically it involves the threat of ED. From the article he linked, the family wanting to stop the project on their land doesn’t need to file a lawsuit to do so–unless ED is being used. Otherwise they could just refuse to sell the easement–no legal action needed.

        That said, I don’t know if Fiorina is for / against ED use in the pipeline.

        1. You can easily make a distinction between using ED for rights of way, and using it to seize property so a private developer can build a private hotel/casino/whatever on it.

          I think ED actually has a role for rights of way (its traditional use), but no role whatsoever in “redevelopment”.

          1. Distinction or no, the point is that a private group is going to use ED to get to build their pet project. Maybe it’s for the common good, but don’t mistake this as a typical RoW. Personally, I see no difference between an oil company getting to use ED to build their own pipeline–which they will get to own and profit from–and Trump using it to build parking for his hotel & casino.

            We aren’t talking about common areas, open for public use. We are talking about private easements, for private purposes. They’re not building a public road.

            1. But the same can be said for the private delivery of electricity & communication service. ED makes sense for long, thin things, & is one of those institutions by which the sacrifice of a little liberty or property in individual cases greatly enhances individual liberty overall. Same thing with fire lanes, for instance.

          2. Wait, Carly is for ED? Like, she likes ’em floppy? Thats kinda odd, what whatever.

            Could you imagine a pipeline with ED? Sagging between the posts, flappin’ in the wind. Shoot, if ED is a problem, should we build the pipeline in cold climates? Won’t that make it worse?

            Or maybe we just request Strip Clubs to set up shop every 100 yards along the pipeline. Fight that ED the old fashioned way.

          3. It’s surely a poorly planned system for delivering those manly fluids! I mean, how are they supposed to get 4,000,000 barrels per day if they don’t have strong, rock-hard pipes?

            1. Surely you’ve heard of Voilagra?

              Worked on the Alaska Pipeline….

              Just sayin’.

  5. Carly bugs the hell out of me on foreign policy.

    So do the other 90%.

    Of all the other candidates–except for Rand Paul and that other guy–she’s the one that bothers me the least. And, like I’ve said before, just basic competence in the White House would be refreshing after the last 16 years.

    And there’s something to be said for doing things competently–even if I disagree with them. If you’re going to war in Iraq over my objections, e.g., maybe don’t sack the Army and go full de-Baathification before you have another management team in place.

    That’s like M&A 101.

    Everybody makes mistakes, but with Bush and Obama, incompetence became the driving force of their administrations. I don’t think that will happen with Carly.

    1. Was it incompetence or was it arrogance that led us to where we are today? Both are die-hard statists, really, and want themselves to be in charge. (Which is a bit like saying “I’m all for theocracy as long as I’m god.”) It seems that incompetence was a consequence of their arrogance, rather than being the driving force itself.

      1. Barack Obama couldn’t successfully manage a single fast food franchise.

        He’s that incompetent.

        George W. Bush was so incompetent, he actually created sympathy for terrorists with his torture program–which, circa 2004, I thought was impossible.

        Neither one of them had any idea what they were doing.

        Bush Jr. invaded Iraq, in part, because his father was smart enough not to do so? All the reasons not to invade in 1991 were still valid in 2003!

        Obama wouldn’t have made it past his initial three month probationary period in my office.

        I appreciate a certain amount of arrogance. You need that in certain professions. Anybody that picks a pediatric heart surgeon for their child based on his bedside manner is an idiot. Heart surgeons, prize fighters, commercial real estate brokers, football quarterbacks, fighter pilots, and U.S. Presidents–I wanna see some arrogance from each and every one of them.

        Incompetence is unforgivable.

        1. I am not sure I agree with your assessment. Yes, a little bit of arrogance can sometimes be valuable (though I would hardly say I want it, being aware of your limits is actually valuable in many situations, and arrogance clouds that judgement) but it is arrogance that we see in Bush and Obama.

          If it were incompetence ONLY, and not arrogance, than we would be saying about Iraq and Obamacare “It was a necessary thing executed poorly” rather than “It was a terrible idea, executed terribly.” But the problem with invading Iraq is not that it was done poorly but that it was done at all. Same with Obamacare. They could both be forgiven for something good done poorly, like a child poorly writing a thank you card. But the problem is the thing itself, primarily, not its execution.

        2. he actually created sympathy for terrorists with his torture program

          I seriously doubt this.

          The abuse of prisoners gave people who already hated him another stick they could use to beat him with. It gave people who were already inclined to support psychotic Islamonutters another pretext to justify their support.

          But I really doubt it changed anyone from being a foe of the nutters to being a supporter.

  6. P.S. I wish the media would start paying more attention to Trump’s negative numbers

    [Trump’s] favorability rating among all likely voters is just 27%, the lowest in the GOP field. More importantly, among likely Republican voters, he has a higher unfavorabilty rating than any of his close rivals.

    According to the poll’s cross tabs, 50% of likely Republican voters said they have a favorable view of Trump, while 37% said they had an unfavorable view.…..s-are-high

    That was when 23% of registered Republican primary voters supported Trump for the nomination. More voters within the GOP have an unfavorable view of Trump than are willing to support him!

    Never mind how Trump would do against Hillary–I’m not sure he can ever get a majority of support for the nomination. As other candidates drop out, it’s not like he’s about to get even more popular. All those negatives mean he’s playing for a smaller size of the undecided Republican pool.

    The same poll, for instance, showed that Ben Carson’s negatives polled at 9% among Republicans. Now there’s a guy that can make a play for the rest of the market as other candidates drop out.

    1. People have been saying as you are about Trump from day one but he is still in the lead. I like Carson, I especially like he’s on board with fairfax. If you notice, he started to really rise in the polls when he was no longer politically correct. The established reps will not support Carson any more than they will Trump. But, let’s all keep supporting and voting for the established politburo candidate, lets continue to do the same thing over and over again while hoping for a different response.

      1. Trump’s numbers are getting less healthy regardless.

    2. I’m not so sure I agree.

      Donald Trump is the one candidate who could unify GOP libertarians and the Republican establishment.

      Neither group would be willing to vote for him.

      1. I lol’d.

  7. I think term limits are one of those ideas that sound superficially appealing, but would probably be terrible in practice. For one thing, I think it would shift even more power to “permanent” staffers and lobbyists, and lead to more backroom deals/less transparency.

    moschino scarf

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.