You don’t know what you are talking about.
Here’s an article discussing it in more detail, there are multiple alleged violations.
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.
In this case his assets put up for collateral were less than the loan value. And using his wife’s assets put her in the same class as a regular donor which is yet another violation.
If you read the NYT article, the line of credit loan from Citi was not for campaign purposes. Even the NYT admitted that much and did not make that accusation, but they did say in a offhanded way that it could have freed up other funds..
This is a tempest in a teapot, littered with lies and distortions.
I’m sorry, but you are going to have to find a more credible source than Conservative Treehouse. They do nothing but pump Trump and bash Cruz. So I am sure their coverage is more than a bit biased.