Posted on 01/20/2016 10:12:28 PM PST by 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
I/ll wait....go find your sense of humor.
Meanwhile a former FEC chair has already stated Cruz’s mistake is a common one because of how the FEC defines what loans need to be declared. This is pure sleaze and slander and when combined with Trump’s politically expedient sellout to ethanol and documented support of many other politically expedient sellouts of the ruling class in Washington should tell us all what we need to know about Trump. I too was swept up into Trump’s anti-establishment rhetoric and how he treats the media like the jerks they are, but the truth is revealing itself and I can only hope that others can escape their herding instincts and see through the slander and lies before it’s too late. Trump is showing his hand to any willing to see it.
“Now Trump on the other hand most definitely praised, donated money to and socialized with some very vile evil people, particularly the Clintons. There’s a long list of others. I’m told he did all things because that’s what it takes to do business in New York. Or in other words to get ahead... But none of that counts at all... In spite of long history of the same behavior. Yet Cruz is the dirty one...”
Trump has been a very successful business man. He was successful because, like anyone who has good practices; he was known, liked and depended upon by both Democrats and Republicans.
The tactic of pointing fingers at someone else’s candidate choice really doesn’t help defend yours you know. It only points up the fact that you have little or no defense to offer.
I’m a Trump supporter but I’m really shocked by this current development with Cruz. The Fiorina/Barton/Beck contortions are something I would never have expected of Cruz, even though I did suspect him of being disingenuous to influence Evangelicals.
As I’ve said before; Cruz has polished a lot of boots that you or we know no of.....yet. Trump’s dealings, both good and bad, have always been out in the open. Otherwise, I really don’t think he would be so fearless.
Cruz can clear up the potential crony capitalist sleaze today by releasing all the loan details and what assets secured those funds. He won’t be doing that. Cruz does not need the FEC’s permission to release the details. He is choosing not too at the moment. That’s his choice.
Supposedly Cruz’s net worth was $1.5 million in 2012. In 2015 it was reported as $3 million to $4.5 million. To me (who deals in $100’s not millions) that is a considerable increase for someone who took out loans on his full assets four years ago.
FYI.
EXHIBIT ONE <><> In January 2016, the New York Times reported that Cruz and his wife had taken out low-interest loans from Goldman Sachs (her employer) and Citibank, and failed to report the nearly $1 million in loans on Federal Election Commission disclosure statements as required by law.[97]
Cruz disclosed the loans on his Senate financial disclosure forms in July 2012, but not on the Federal Election Commission form.[98]
The loans were largely repaid by later campaign fundraising.....even though Cruz/s spox recently said no donor paid off the loans.
A spokesperson for Cruz said his failure to report the loans to the FEC was "inadvertent" and said he would be filing supplementary paperwork.[97]
EXHIBIT TWO <><> Time magazine reported on a potential violation of ethics rules by Senate candidate Cruz. ........by failing to publicly disclose his financial relationship with Caribbean Equity Partners Investment Holdings during the 2012 campaign, Cruz called his failure to disclose these connections an inadvertent omission.[96]
I’d rather that Cruz speak about real issues instead of chasing down every red herring the opposition decides to muddy the water with,,,
So just come out and say a little political corruption is okay with you. Trump’s made no bones about “owning politicians” to do favors for him. He says as much so you know who the boss is.
Enjoy your leftward swing as you follow Trump. He’s already got a fair number of people defending crony capitalism in mandating ethanol... It is only the beginning... Buckle up...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3386468/posts
As I said; you have no defense to offer on behalf of your candidate choice other than trashing Trump to deflect from Cruz’s obvious problem. I believe that qualifies as TDS.
Tell me how Cruz and Fiorina’s little under the table deals weren’t underhanded and disingenuous.
I’d rather that Cruz speak about real issues instead of chasing down every red herring the opposition decides to muddy the water with,,,
Sorry, it’s a “real issue” given Goldman Sachs’s employment of his wife and wide influence in DC. Potential conflict of interest, influence peddling, etc. I realize Team Cruz does not want to think of it that way but it is what it is.
Ridiculous, totally and completely ridiculous. It’s a freaking loan that they secured with assets AND they paid back. So we’re supposed to believe anybody that’s ever taken a loan and paid it back is in the tank for their bank? Good grief that’s so shallow and transparent...
Excellent point.
This is not a loan from your local random credit union. It’s a loan from a Wall Street bank that was the largest single donor to U. S. Senators in the run up to the TPA vote. A bank that just happened to employ the wife of one of those Senators. A senator who just happened to campaign for TPA for over a month until changing his vote at the last minute.
Sorry, everybody but Cruz true believers can see this issue needs to be fully investigated. Cruz would do himself a favor by releasing all info immediately. What is he hiding?
Just because something is common doesn’t excuse it.
To a talented lawyer like Cruz, the law should be pretty simple to figure out.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/104.8
“(g) The principal campaign committee of the candidate shall report the receipt of any bank loan obtained by the candidate or loan of money derived from an advance on a candidate’s brokerage account, credit card, home equity line of credit, or other lines of credit described in11 CFR 100.83 and 100.143, as an itemized entry of Schedule A as follows:
(1) The amount of the loan that is used in connection with the candidate’s campaign shall be reported as an itemized entry on Schedule A. “
lmao,,, all the details have already been declared and posted multiple times with other political entities. Maybe we should ask The Donald to do the same for all of his loans, I’ll bet there some interesting stuff in there. LOL.
Meanwhile: ethanol, single payer healthcare, bank bailouts, obama stimulus,,, all things that The Donald is on record as supporting, that’s what we should be talking about.
“Trump has only defaulted on a few billion in loans”
Those were business, not related to a campaign which has tons of red tape involved to verify nothing sneaky is done.
Trump defaulted 4 times - 4 out of hundreds of high risk deals is a success rate of about 97%.
I wish I had a 97% success rate investing in stocks and bonds, much less something high risk.
Has Ted had success rate of 97% with the bills he’s introduced?
No need to worry.
Why is Clinton not in prison by now anyway?
Trump reeks of sleaze
He did report them on his Senate disclosure.
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.