Campaign Watchdog Group Files FEC Complaint–Cruz Failure To Disclose

The Conservative Treehouse ^ | 1/20/16 | Sundance

[M. Thatcher]

By now most people are aware of the controversy surrounding Candidate Ted Cruz and his failure to reveal $1.3 million in campaign "loans" from Goldman Sachs and Citibank during his 2012 campaign for the senate.

At the heart of the issue is a failure of Ted and Heidi Cruz to list Wall Street "loans" on the required Federal Election Commission financial reports.

Together with the campaign officials the Cruz's say the non-reporting was an accidental oversight. However, a watch dog group has now filed a complaint with the FEC which is step one to beginning an FEC investigation.

cruz goldman sachs

The full complaint (pdf) is outlined below. However, the larger question behind the complaint would be the motive for Ted and Heidi Cruz to hide the source of their campaign funds. The activity the complainant is presenting to have the FEC investigate, if proven accurate, is factually illegal.

The "accidental omission" is not necessarily the problem. The irreconcilable consequences from an accurate filing are the larger issue.

They can correct the missing information and file amended reports. However, if the Cruz campaign corrects the record based on the explanations to the media, the amended reports will reflect their violations of federal campaign finance laws. View this document on Scribd

A candidate CANNOT take out an unsecured signature loan for their campaign. Also, while the legalese can quickly get a person into the weeds, essentially a candidate's spouse is similarly limited in contribution amount to the same principles as an unrelated campaign donor.

If a candidate could take out an unsecured signature loan, it opens the door wide open to corrupt exploitation by external influence.

The candidate with $500k in assets, or a Manchurian candidate with zero in assets, could be given a $2 million loan – which the loan originator would not expect to get back.

In this example, third parties, who are part of the influence equation, could pay back the loan on the candidate's behalf, avoid FEC/public scrutiny and hold influence over what the elected political official does in office.

That's the BIGGER question in this example.

* Was this second scenario a method for Wall Street, via Goldman Sachs, to put the well-educated husband of one of their "employees" into office, simply to insure that as a U.S. Senator he was friendly to their interests?

* Would Wall Street industrial bankers, who finance global corporations, be able to insure this type of candidate would, as an example, advocate for something like Trans-Pacific Trade?

* Would Wall Street institutional bankers, who benefit from low interest loans via U.S. Treasury, be able to influence such a candidate to avoid auditing the federal reserve?

* Would Wall Street institutional banking agents who benefit from low interest federal borrowing, and higher interest investment loaning, be able to influence policy regarding North American economic development?

* Would, as an example, a billionaire hedge-fund manager (Robert Mercer), who is in a legal fight with the IRS to the tune of $10 BILLION taxes owed, be willing to invest several million, perhaps tens of millions, into a presidential campaign in an effort to win the White House and influence a U.S. Tax Policy that would tilt the IRS scales in his favor – and consequently save him billions?

Those become the bigger questions to consider when asking yourself why would such a brilliant legal expert, a very smart lawyer like Ted Cruz, just inadvertently omit such a filing to the FEC.

Wouldn't an equally sharp spouse like Heidi S. Cruz, who was -according to Ted- a key decision maker in the loans, and who is also an energy investment banker with Goldman Sachs, also identify the concern?

cruz donors 2

I'm beginning to take a much more skeptical look at Senator Ted Cruz's financial intents and the people who hold influence upon him.

The Robert Mercer angle alone is showing some VERY ALARMING "probabilities". ...The fact that Mercer owes the IRS between $6 and $10 billion, and is in a legal dispute over payment,... in connection with Mercer setting up the Keep the Promise (KtP) Super-PAC before turning it over to David Barton (Glenn Beck affiliate),.... and then Mercer giving Carly Fiorina the start up money from KtP to begin Carly for America,... and then Mercer purchasing the Data Analytics for Ted Cruz,..... and then Mercer buying influential interest in the Breitbart website to the benefit of Cruz..... All gives the brutally obvious motive of a quid-pro-quo.

Robert Mercer spends $100 million to get Ted Cruz the White House; Ted Cruz then turns around and leverages a better IRS result for Robert Mercer.

One of Cruz's primary campaign points is the elimination of the IRS and the imposition of a flat tax. If successful, that would save Mercer $6 to $10 billion.

That's BILLION, with a "B".

In addition the Cruz campaign head Rick Tyler made some very bold-faced misrepresentations earlier tonight about K-Street Lobbyists and Donors not having influence over Ted Cruz's legislative record. The truth begs to differ significantly (as noted above).

There are three KtP Super-Pacs and they are all spending significant amounts of money. See HERE and See HERE and See HERE [Notice the Cambridge Analytica is Robert Mercer.] Something very sketchy is going on…

ted and heidi kiss

[LowOiL]

Second cleanup I have seen in aisle 9 in as many days, other one was a Trump supporter. Equal opportunity ban hammer site.

MEMORY LANE from Jim....

Free Republic is a family oriented forum, or at least we try to be classier than your normal everyday run of the mill, slap ‘em together forum. We have seen a significant increase in the amount of risqué comments and graphics being posted lately. Please tone it back a notch or two. The ‘aw not this **** again’ graphic and bared breasts are inappropriate. Let’s remember, we’re Free Republic, not some wanna be site, and certainly, we’re not some liberal chat site. Let’s keep our standards high. Strive for excellence. For the most part, we are educated, responsible adults. A simple comment to that effect will suffice. We don’t need to see F*** or s***. The English language is a great tool; learn to use it. It really lowers your credibility as a poster when you resort to profanity and flames. It takes finesse to make your point without using these tactics.

Again, there are way to many vanities. We don’t need your one thought as an individual thread. Post it on a related thread. Also, you all might want to curb your super bowl outrage. It’s starting to get out of control, (see above). Please, use restraint. We don’t really need to see ‘the picture’ again, or a graphic description of the event.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1070896/posts

[Duchess47]

Thank you.

[Covenantor]

He knew enough to file the disclosure to the Senate, so ignorance is not an excuse. It seems to be a calculated effort. and gamble to obscure the contents and whatever trail. Hide the info from the most publically access repository and bury it in the relatively obscure Senate data base. Speaks of a calculated intent to deceive. From a lawyer and his wife trained in econ and finance, both with experience in GWB campaign. No naifs these two. So much for abiding by the rule of law.

Sounds so similar to someone else’s efforts that have been in the news, doesn’t it.

Too much smoke being blown here about purported loan details based purely on press releases. The failure to file is the edge that needs to be peeled back.

[tacticalogic]

At the same time, he also did not disclose he was a dual Canadian citizen......the Harvard-educated lawyer w/ two Ivy League degrees said he didn't know.

Any idea how many courses he took in Canadian law while he was at Harvard?

[BobL]

Actually, I stand corrected. After the election, one can only wring out $250k to pay off personal loans to a campaign, so that’s the most a candidate can effectively loan himself, unless he has a surplus on election day also, of which he can also add that money (i.e., unspent money).

I don’t know the rules on commercial/corporate loans, but if the loans are legit, I’d expect the lender to want to be paid back, and to take action if not paid back.

Still difficult to figure out what Cruz was thinking.

[Duchess47]

Benghazi is 2012 old news too. Is the degree of dishonesty on politicians the deciding factor? Or how long ago it was?

There is a big difference between personal views and criminal behavior. We don’t know if the loans are criminal behavior or stupidity but something like that doesn’t get a pass because it was four years ago.

[Liz]

NAILS THE ELECTED CRIMINAL CALSS ON CAPITOL HILL---DESERVES A REPEAT The costs of getting into the Senate can be considered an investment, with unlimited payback that can indirectly offset those "un-recoupable" costs. People of modest means holding elected office get very rich, far beyond what their government salaries would allow.

Organized crime headquarters.

==========================================

A Cruz spox emphasized that the Wall Street loans were taken against Cruz family assets that were in margin accounts; under federal campaign law, the Cruzes can never recoup the money, effectively making it an out-of-pocket expense.

Cruz/s Senate campaign narrative has become legendary.....portraying himself as a scrappy populist putting everything on the line to overcome a wealthy establishment opponent.

He was whining in the media, telling trusting Texans that that he, and his faithful little wife, were forced to liquidate their entire family savings (of slightly more than $1 million) to fuel a come-from-behind win in the Republican primary.

NOW TRUSTING TEXANS LEARN Cruz did not liquidate family assets.....he got his hands on over a million dollars from his hefty margin accounts at G/S and Citibank......and did not disclose this on FEC reports (to keep it a secret from trusting Texans).

Cruz did not disclose loans on FEC reports (required by law) b/c Texans would have discovered he was not the aw-shucks rube he pretended to be. He continued the rube act in order to milk votes from trusting Texans.

At the same time, he also did not disclose he was a dual Canadian citizen......the Harvard-educated lawyer w/ two Ivy League degrees said he didn't know.

[Duchess47]

I started really investigating Cruz when Bush said that. As you said, W has never before said anything like that publicly.

[Duchess47]

My understanding, which may be wrong, is that the Goldman Sachs loan was secured by assets. The Citibank was a signature loan. It was not secured by anything.

[Liz]

Heh......I believe he may have taken courses in Canadian law to get extra credit.

[Liz]

The costs of getting into the Senate can be considered an investment, with unlimited payback that can indirectly offset those "un-recoupable" costs. People of modest means holding elected office get very rich, far beyond what their government salaries would allow.

HOW/D THEY DO THAT? When he went to jail, investigators found Ponzi King Bernie Madoff had stashed billions offshore---into a labyrinth of financial entities. Some $8.9 billion was funneled to Madoff through a dozen so-called feeder funds based in Europe, the Caribbean and Central America.

The labyrinth of hedge funds, management companies and service providers, to unsuspecting outsiders, seemed to compose a formidable system of checks and balances. But the purpose of this complex financial architecture was just the opposite: the feeder funds provided different modes for directing money to Madoff in order to get rich and avoid scrutiny.

[Fresh Wind]

That’s why I used the word “like” in my comment.

Disguising the source of money, if done deliberately, is what money laundering is all about. I agree, there was nothing criminal in the way he obtained the money.

The question is whether this alleged deception was deliberate or accidental.

Of course they’re going to say it was accidental. Politicians never admit to anything negative until they absolutely have to.

But isn’t it better to get something like this out of the way now in the primary season?

Or would you rather have it flare up once Cruz is the candidate?

[LowOiL]

2016 Ted Cruz is posing as an aw-shucks, scrappy country lawyer, despite his elite connections to Wall Street bankers.....and his wife's $700,000 a year job working for Goldman Sachs.

So what is Trump's position on Goldman Sachs?

Trump here sounds pretty much buddy buddy with them himself.

50 seconds into the video....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GB_UrICejIs

[tacticalogic]

The question is whether this alleged deception was deliberate or accidental.

To qualify as "deception" I'd think it would have to be deliberate.

[tacticalogic]

Heh......I believe he may have taken courses in Canadian law to get extra credit.

What's your basis for that belief? Hopefully it's something factual and objective.

[TornadoAlley3]

I wish Ted would have used Bank of Texas instead of Goldman Sachs.

[Fresh Wind]

To qualify as "deception" I'd think it would have to be deliberate.

Again, that why I stuck in that lawyerly weasel word "alleged"!

[Fresh Wind]

I don't disagree with anything you said, but for the record, you quoted part of my comment (at post 149), and altered it by replacing "a payback" with "unlimited payback".

[lodi90]

Page 35 of 2012 version FEC rules require reporting of personal loans made to a candidate when such funds are then used by the campaign. There is some gray area if the candidate takes out the loan for personal expenses after emptying bank accounts. Since the amounts made do not exactly match with checks Cruz wrote to his campaign, it is quite possible that not all of the money went to the campaign.

---

Cruz said on Levin last night he used the money for the campaign. TV ads in particular. I’m sorry but these loans have never been reported as campaign related. Cruz does not need the FEC’s permission to full disclose the info. What is he hiding?

[lodi90]

My understanding, which may be wrong, is that the Goldman Sachs loan was secured by assets. The Citibank was a signature loan. It was not secured by anything.

---

And what are the assests that secured the loan? Cruz needs to fully disclose immediately all details of these loans given the obvious conflict of interest with Cruz’s wife working at GS and and GS being a big player on issues before the U. S. Senate.

This has more than a little whiff of Clintonian cattle futures and Cruz needs to clear it up ASAP otherwise it will look like he is hiding something. Ooops, did I just compare Cruz to Hillary? Ruh roh.