BACKSTORY At the time Cruz got his hands on over a million dollars from his hefty margin account at G/S......he was whining in the media, telling Texas voters that he and his little wife (faithfully standing by her man) were having to liquidate their entire family savings (of slightly more than $1 million) to fuel a come-from-behind win in the Republican primary.
The Cruz tale has become legendary.....part and parcel of Cruz/s campaign narrative of a populist, scrappy Cruz putting everything on the line to overcome a wealthy establishment opponent.
(JUST SAYIN Most people would not have over a million dollars that they could easily liquidate on some cheap whim of being the prez.)
==============================================
Cruz/s belated disclosure of the loan was bombshell. In what was clearly a pre-meditated move (to give himself cover), Cruz did disclose the G/S loan....BUT not on the FEC form required by law. Now he will amend the FEC form.
The G/S loan is a bigger problem for Cruz than most candidates b/c of the way he/s structured his campaign.
He fashions himself as a homegrown guy w/ working class values, a harsh critic of big banks and Wall Street....says he/s just a Texas rube who/ll never have his name on a plane.
But wait a sec.....the whopper G/S loan makes Cruz look like more and more like a slickster....a slick pol, a powermonger who/ll go against his own principles to get into office.
Besides, Cruz/s drumbeat for H-1B/s never mentions that he was on the hook to H-1B user Goldman Sachs (big employers of H-1B/s) for over a million.
Ut oh ... apparently Donald found out Ted has more than one New York bank loan floating around. Conservative Treehouse. com has that story.
There is no confirmation that under FEC rules either of these two loans were required to be reported.
Both of these loans were personal loans secured with personal assets, not loans made to the campaign. The campaign was not responsible to pay back either loan.
All that is required , if anything, is an amended filing.
Excerpts...
The FEC requires candidates to disclose bank loans taken out to finance their bids for office simply because such loans can be used to subvert campaign finance laws.
If a candidate takes out a loan, in any amount, any entity can repay the loan on the candidate’s behalf – and that’s a way to subvert rules on the amount of contributions.
...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.
• 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?
to read later