Seriousness of each? Here, fault is suggested greater for Harris based on policy she now seems to be backtracking on; then Schultz, with no reason to have done what he did to the disadvantage of many, though not as bad as Trump University. Klobuchar gets a pass. The claim is nebulous and disputed. The other two are factual, i.e., objective, while the Klobuchar attack is judgmental and subjective.
Schultz, in a report by an author already critical of the candidacy:
Schultz co-founded an investment capital group, Maveron, that put $7.5 million into for-profit Capella University in 2003, with a 2008 Securities and Exchange Commission filing revealing that Schultz owned 50,000 shares of Capella stock.
[...] In making Maveron a minority shareholder in Capella, Schultz said at the time: "Capella wants to transform education for working adults by making the online experience as compelling and rewarding as possible."
Maveron severed its connection when the online university went public in 2006.
As Politico reported Wednesday, the Inspector General's office did an audit of Capella in 2008 and found the university had overcharged the federal student aid program by $588,000 between 2002 and 2005. It recommended that the Federal Student Aid Office ask for the money back.
Capella responded that it had failed to return some money loaned to students who dropped out early, but pegged the amount at $278,000.
The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP), in a 2012 report, voiced "serious concern" at the dropout rate of Capella students, and noted "an unusually high portion of revenue on marketing and a relatively small amount on instruction for its exclusively online program."
The Senate committee found that in 2009, Capella spent $1,650 per student on instruction, compared to $4,538 per student on marketing and $2,912 on profit.
It quoted from a "Sales Training Overview" to describe the school's student recruiting strategy, telling recruiters:
"Dig deep into the prospect's needs, goals, motivations, dreams, aspirations, etc. (uncovering the 'why'). Use this information to position Capella as a solution."
[...] The for-profit higher education industry gets the vast majority of its income from federal student loans.
The man, Schultz, is as reprehensible and unprincipled as Minnesota's former CD2 Rep., Col. John Kline who took money from that industry into campaign coffers while giving comfort to such an enemy.
Taking the Schultz situation seriously in any feasible way is difficult, with it seeming more circus than substance.
Unlike the other two, Schultz is easily dismissed. As to Klobuchar, besides the HuffPo item already cited, this search. Leaving only Harris and her waffling.
A legendary civil rights activist, defense attorney, former city supervisor, and an outspoken advocate for marijuana legalization, Hallinan rode a wave of discontent and squeaked by in his election to become San Francisco district attorney in 1995. He swiftly fired senior prosecutors in order to hire more minorities and reformists. He instructed his deputies to avoid the practice of objecting to a proposed juror for a criminal trial — an unusual stance that weakened the hand of the DA’s office — to avoid empaneling all-white juries.
Sex work, said Hallinan, was a public health problem — not a criminal offense. He quickly made waves by claiming that he would fight for nonviolent offenders to receive social services over jail time and called drug use a victimless crime, an argument that invited contempt from law enforcement officials.
Yet Hallinan — considered one of the “most left-wing politicians in the country” — was expelled in 2003 after just two terms in office, despite San Francisco’s notorious liberal bent. An up-and-coming young career prosecutor named Kamala Harris, running in her first bid for public office, unseated him.
Many in San Francisco view the campaign as a defining moment for Harris, who carefully cultivated a base of support among police officers, domestic violence advocates, wealthy donors, and a diverse range of local officials and community leaders who had bristled at Hallinan’s leftist politics and abrasive style.
Despite starting the race as a relatively unknown candidate against an incumbent viewed as a radical icon, Harris vaulted over Hallinan and easily won a runoff election. The race launched Harris’s political career, which culminated in her announcement last month at a rally in Oakland to seek the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.
Far from the “smart on crime” mantra she touted later, Harris’s first campaign reflected familiar tactics in an era of booming mass incarceration.
The 2003 race stands apart from the image she has projected in more recent years.
You ask, "Will the real Kamala Harris stand up," and get the answer, "For which audience?" It does not foster trust.
Of the three, being bitchy with staff, if true, is not as bad as disqualifying profiteering akin to Trump University, or being different things at different times for different purposes, which suggests no coherent integrity, but to ambition.
_________________UPDATE________________
The Seattle PI item of Schultz is deficient, and that must be noted. How large was the investment vehicle, total capital, so that the share of its holding in the phony university scam can be measured; and what level of investment control did Schultz exercise? A billion dollar pooled fund indepentently managed might be more like holdings in a mutual fund than an active chosen investment in the thing. Such details matter. Why the author decided to not go there, the devilish detail, can only be guessed at, yet his writings have uniformly been hostile to Schultz. That Schultz is a flawed person and flawed candidate independently of that particular allocation of a part of his wealth remains as the major criticism of the man and his new adventure.
The Harris current adventure troubles more. Being one thing in the past, in part out of intense ambition, while now being yet more ambitious, or ambitious as ever but aiming higher, troubles because of the ease with which she appears to change gears. Recall that Trump made social security and healthcare promises in the course of his bombastic run which he had no intention of keeping, thereby showing that ambitious, ideologically over-flexible individuals can be problematic down the line. Indeed, Obama promised CHANGE, set aside HOPE for now, that Guantanomo would be closed, and delivered the Heritage/Romney welfare for the insurance industry thing instead of any true and decent healthcare reform; so distrusting promises of a politician should be a norm, particularly one such as Harris with her on-the-record flip-flopping, much as Gillibrand is in redefinition mode as Senator vs her policies on which she ran to capture an upstate New York conservative district.
Trust either? I trust Warren, despite the native American dimension, it is inconsequential in light of her policy consistency in protecting folks from the wolves of banking's worse actions. Bernie has been as consistent as a rock in who he is and what he stands for, and neither Warren nor Bernie need to even contemplate redefinition to be more in tune with actual popular sentiments. They are there already, and consistently have been there.
It is not gender bias, trusting both Warren and Bernie, nor racial in distrusting Harris, Booker, Beto, and Gillibrand each to a different degree and for a range of reasons. Beyond that, an openness to others having the choice against my one vote demands being open to a candidate, however flawed, (but not as odiously bad as the Clintons and Podesta brothers), who may emerge as one of the two party candidates to run in 2020 - the offering of the party not holding incumbency. Openness to that reality is required. Unfortunately so, given the stuff the both have offered; Clintons, Reagan, the Bush dad/son pair, and do not forget Nixon and the Ford "pardon me." Real winners. Having a viable third party would be nice but we don't. The Democratic Party inner party operatives, superdelegates and such, may force the issue to where a viable third party emerges, but 2020 remains closed to any such evolution. We will be stuck with a lesser evil than Trump. May it be beyond that a positive inspiring individual. Meaning Warren or Bernie.