Posted on 01/14/2016 10:02:14 AM PST by Isara
Yesterday, the New York Times ran and “investigative” piece on Ted Cruz’s finances. I their story they point to an alleged failure by Ted Cruz to report a loan he received to finance his campaign:
Those reports show that in the critical weeks before the May 2012 Republican primary, Mr. Cruz - currently a leading contender for his party's presidential nomination - put "personal funds" totaling $960,000 into his Senate campaign. Two months later, shortly before a scheduled runoff election, he added more, bringing the total to $1.2 million - "which is all we had saved," as Mr. Cruz described it in an interview with The New York Times several years ago.
A review of personal financial disclosures that Mr. Cruz filed later with the Senate does not find a liquidation of assets that would have accounted for all the money he spent on his campaign. What it does show, however, is that in the first half of 2012, Ted and Heidi Cruz obtained the low-interest loan from Goldman Sachs, as well as another one from Citibank. The loans totaled as much as $750,000 and eventually increased to a maximum of $1 million before being paid down later that year. There is no explanation of their purpose.
Neither loan appears in reports the Ted Cruz for Senate Committee filed with the Federal Election Commission, in which candidates are required to disclose the source of money they borrow to finance their campaigns. Other campaigns have been investigated and fined for failing to make such disclosures, which are intended to inform voters and prevent candidates from receiving special treatment from lenders. There is no evidence that the Cruzes got a break on their loans.
So he got a loan to finance his campaign, he didn’t get special treatment on the loan, but he failed to report it. But the hypocrisy:
There would have been nothing improper about Mr. Cruz obtaining bank loans for his campaign, as long as they were disclosed. But such a disclosure might have conveyed the wrong impression for his candidacy.
Mr. Cruz, a conservative former Texas solicitor general, was campaigning as a populist firebrand who criticized Wall Street bailouts and the influence of big banks in Washington. It is a theme he has carried into his bid for the Republican nomination for president.
Earlier this year, when asked about the political clout of Goldman Sachs in particular, he replied, "Like many other players on Wall Street and big business, they seek out and get special favors from government."
This is an administrative error that can be fixed by filing an amendment. But the GOP establishment, as reflected through their mouthpiece Jennifer Rubin, thinks this is the silver bullet they were in search of: 10 reasons that Goldman Sachs loan is a nightmare for Ted Cruz.
The GOP is lucky to find this out now. Imagine what would happen if the party nominated someone with this to go up against the Clinton attack machine. It's one more reason not to nominate someone with such a thin public record who has never been thoroughly vetted.
Right, like a paper mistake is going to kill a candidate when a federal investigation of the Clinton Foundation won’t bother Hillary.
EXCEPT.
It really isn’t entirely true.
|
Ted Cruz’s primary runoff against Dewhurst was July 31, 2012. He publicly disclosed the margin loan July 9, 2012. pic.twitter.com/8yyV4zxrV9 - Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) January 14, 2016 |
And the loan had been reported on in the press in 2013
As of the end of 2012, Cruz listed a "Loan to Ted Cruz For Senate" as an asset valued at$500,001 to $1 million. However, because of the 2002 changes to campaign finance law, the committee is limited to making loan repayments to the candidate (1) from funds received before an election, or (2) $250,000 from funds received after an election. Because of earlier loan repayments, as of the end of 2012, the committee could only legally repay the candidate $298,000. This includes $48,000 for his outstanding primary election loans, and $250,000 for his outstanding runoff election loans. … Cruz does list on his personal financial disclosure report as liabilities two loans received in 2012. One was a margin loan of $250,001 to $500,000 from Goldman Sachs. The other was a line of credit of $250,001 to $500,000 obtained from Citibank.
Cruz took out the loan before his primary campaign against David Dewhurst. It was disclosed at the time, though apparently not carried forward. It was reported on in the press in 2013 and, to make matters worse, Cruz is going to be left holding the bag for the loan because the election committee can’t legally repay him. So Rubin’s fulmination is wrong. And Cruz has explained the circumstances, so it isn’t like there is deception involved:
|
Here’s what @tedcruz told reporters tonight in Dorchester, S.C., about the @nytimes report on his undisclosed loan: pic.twitter.com/AWtgIYJQp4 - Patrick Svitek (@PatrickSvitek) January 14, 2016 |
There are two take aways from this story. The first is that the loan was disclosed during Cruz’s primary challenge to David Dewhurst. The fact that the loan was not carried forward on his general election documentation is not a deal of any type. The loan was not hidden and Rubin’s pantie wetting fit over hypocrisy is just as dumb as she is. The law can be complied with by filing an amended report which Cruz has indicated he will do. The second take away is “is this all ya got?” Really. You investigate a man’s financial disclosure and the best you can come up with to justify your labor is a loan that was disclosed on one report and not disclosed on a second report but was not improper in any other respect?
And maybe there is a third. Just how good is the NYT when it misses stuff that is on the internet and can be found via a Google search? Or did it miss it?
And maybe there is a third. Just how good is the NYT when it misses stuff that is on the internet and can be found via a Google search? Or did it miss it?"
Chalk up another one for “The Donald”.
The American Press = Paid Democrat Liars
Form and article dollar amounts don’t match. Article stipulates 250,001-500,000 for the loan but the form highlighted in red is only marked for 125,001-250,000.
All hype, all distortion, all the time.
Lies, lies an poppycock.
Jen Rubin, cheez. She is psycho.
They do this to Trump too.
It’s not to only bring down Cruz but Trump also.
Erick Erickson’s homo Red State doing their best to cover up for Cruz. That form is not to the FEC. July is when Cruz had already beaten Dewhurst, and the money listed therein is said to only be between 100 to 200 thousand. That is a financial disclosure form, with Cruz’s debt being listed as part of his personal liabilities (iow, does not disclose he used this money for his campaign.) It’s not the entire loan either. Also, the filing for the FEC is more vigorous, since the entire purpose is to make sure there was no hanky panky between Goldman Sachs— of which Heidi Cruz was VP for— and the Cruz campaign, so Ted is required to give them all the paperwork for the loan to insure that nothing untoward was going on. The “press” information Red State cites is from 2013, obviously after the campaign was already over, and after Cruz had sold his supporters on the idea that he had liquidated all his assets and put them toward the campaign.
The facts don’t matter.
The buzz has already ramped up on this one in the MSM - and regardless of the facts - damage will be done.
Remember you are talking about an extremely ignorant and gullible voting public (The Ignorant Masses - or as A.H. put it - “Your people, sir, is a great beast.”). It doesn’t take much to get the beast stampeding in one direction or another.
Massive blow. Unlikely. But keep in mind - A death by a thousand cuts.
Facts upsetting you is a normal thing.
This is for all of them, and not just for Cruz:
Why would Cruz or anybody, and especially just a candidate, spend 1.2 million of his own money for a job in the US Senate that pays only $174,000. a year?
It would take 7 years or so, paying every dime of a senate salary, to receive back 1.2 million dollars.
And that would leave nothing to live on.
Having said that, this disclosure form for the Senate is very different than a FEC disclosure detailing how his campaign is financed. His opponents will say it seems awfully convenient for him to forget a politically problematic loan on his campaign filings.
WaPo really hates Cruz, even more than other rags.
Ha-Ha, the Trumpsters getting sucked in by the mainstream media...AGAIN.
The problem is the loan itself, not whether Cruz reported it or not. Corporatist leanings are becoming corporatist supineness for Cruz. Too late to shift like he has tried to do on H1b visas.
He is such a disappointment. Watch the GOPe start supporting him as one of them.
Case closed.
But Trump thinks this is a big deal.
So the question arises...
Does Trump not understand margin loans or is he just stupid?
Trump has been a media bad boy for decades. They know full well what they say will only help him, but not nearly as much as the air time they give him for free and the way they reinforce the way he controls the agenda.
Don't let the screaming mouths on the screen fool you: Trump is a media creation, not a target. They know he'll change "The Deal" at the first opportunity.
So the media lied when reporting on the only conservative un the race? I’m shocked.
Correct assessment. And a lawyerly defense buried in legal minutia will just seal the deal.
One added point: seems this form actually was already mentioned within the New York times article itself. Did not satisfy disclosure requirements, but RedState wants to pretend it did and as if they found something new.
Chortle!
Another one of your attacks against Ted Cruz bites the sand?
Enjoy!
Trump May or may not change the deal.
To my mind the deal is not why I like Trump.
Trump has stopped Jeb Bush and the other GOPe. Cruz was also necessary for that, as was Carson.
This gas been a glorious season so far in seeing the GOPe lose and be marginalized. And in having the media belittled and exposed.
It’s almost miraculous.
Trump merits respect and support for his large role in this.
Cruz and Carson also.
The GOPe are counting on a divided house that cannot stand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.