...but New York is ok for Goldman Sachs and Citibank...
LIVE BY THE LAWS THAT AMERICA WAS FOUNDED UPON
GO.TRUMP.GO!!!
Media Reports A Second Wall Street Banking Loan “Inadvertently Omitted” By Candidate Ted Cruz
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 thats 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 candidates 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?