With regard to the FEC reporting, there is a two-step involved. Cruz took a brokerage loan from Goldman Sachs (reported on his Senate financial disclosure). He then used those funds to make a personal loan to the campaign. This personal loan WAS reported by the campaign to the FEC, although a lot of careless commentary is losing sight of this. I presume it was also reported on his Senate financial disclosure; that doesn't seem to be in question.
What the campaign failed to report was the fact that the funds Cruz loaned to it were a pass-through of Cruz's earlier brokerage loan. This is not a wrinkle I had ever thought about and am frankly a little surprised to find that it is apparently required. I am also reasonably confident that none of the reporters and pundits hyperventilating over this oversight had any idea either.
I have never filled out an FEC report and have no idea of the details. The campaign is required to report contributions and loans, which it did. I was not aware that the campaign had any obligation to report anything beyond that, such as where a donor got the funds to contribute. This is new to me. I'm guessing that it is a rule that applies only to the candidates themselves, or perhaps to close family. If I wrote a big check tomorrow to the Cruz campaign (as if I had the money to play in the big leagues), I do not think the campaign is under any obligation to report how I got the funds. Nor should it be.
I want this Goldman Sachs loan cleared up.
Remphasizing your post 908, same page. You go head-on in Cruz’ defense that he did not duck the FEC, while Greetings Puny Humans thinks its sleazy.
I agree with you, sphinx, that FEC rules are byzantine, a landmine that the Ruling Class uses to take out conservative threats. Cruz being a Tea Party leader, he’s a prime target.
Now to put the monkey on Trump’s back regarding Cruz eligibility ...
It would be presidential of Trump to help clear up the Cruz-birther issue himself. To do his very best to vindicate Cruz’ eligibility would make Trump greater than ever —
— A UNITER.
He could wait until after Iowa, but I hope he does it before New Hampshire at least.
Seems to be common sense! Why wouldn't you provide a full accounting of where the money came from? Pretending to be an independent person, when in fact you are just a middle man for some other, nefarious individual, is an old and obvious trick. What's even weirder is that this is Ted Cruz, not some third party, loaning to his own campaign a bunch of cash. It doesn't take a genius to figure out, "oh, maybe I should report that this money isn't from my savings or something, but is from Goldman Sachs." Filling out the paperwork, me being an idiot, I would immediately wonder if I should include that obviously important information!
Though if the intent is to hide a Goldman Sachs connection, then it's perfectly reasonable to not include Goldman Sachs into the FEC report.
Cruz didn't hide the loan. It was fully reported on his Senate financial disclosure forms. It has been public information from day one.
Well, when was the first financial disclosure filed and when did it first make it "public"? If it's the July form, the nomination fight is basically over. Dewhurst is a gonner. Considering the earliest article I've seen on the topic is in 2013, evidently Cruz's actions kept it unnoticed long enough for him to win the entire election. How long would it have gone unnoticed, considering his campaign rhetoric of "liquidating networth and savings," if Cruz had included it in the FEC filing instead of a financial disclosure form? I'll also add that the financial disclosure form has the added bonus of not using the words "Used for my campaign" written on it. Would someone looking at it know it wasn't a loan for a new fancy house or something?