Posted on 01/21/2016 8:43:52 AM PST by Bratch
Full title:
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.
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.
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?
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…
The last refuge is a Trumpkin.
But the junior senator knows more Bible verses than anyone else in the field
IBTCIEFPCHAFP
In Before The Cruz Isn’t Eligible For President ‘Cause He’s A Furiner Ping.
Posted yesterday
Hey, but I thought Cruz Isn’t Eligible For President ‘Cause He’s A Furiner?
Others candidates who have pulled the same stunt were fined by the FEC.
I can’t blame Cruz for trying to hide his relationship with Goldman Sachs.
Exposing him borrowing money from the same Wall Street companies
he rails against, would make him look like a hypocrite.
Unfortunately he was not able to keep it hid.
Lot of money changing hands.
They go after character.
I have a very close relative that worked with Mr. Cruz in Texas government. No one questioned his ethics ever. He's a very strong Christian man....this seems to be a problem with Trumpsters, since their candidate is unable to even quote a scripture verse properly.
Am I supposed to object to the abolition of the (unconstitutional) IRS because someone named Mercer would save $6 billion or more on his taxes?
I am reluctant to cut off the nose of cutting taxes and saving money for myself and renewing American prosperity in order to spite the face of a political donor who happens to agree with me about tax policy.
I don't understand the point of this post.
I am NOT a Cruz gal, but this is such a shame how in the hell did Cruz think this would not come out!!!! ALL of these asshats are bought and paid for!!!!!
Surprised the junior senator hasn’t blamed this on his staff. That staff gets him at times
His behavior in not reporting the “Loan” certainly opens him to charges of unethical hypocritical behavior. At present I count the “Loan” as one black mark against Cruz. However, his behavior pales before that of Hillary.
Woodforest National Bank?
Funny story about them. There’s a Wal-Mart dominated shopping center about 15 miles from us. They have a Woodforest Bank inside the store. The thrift shop across the parking lot refuses to take Woodforest issued checks because they bounce ALL THE TIME.
(belly laugh) Now, THAT’s original. For. The. WIN!
(how about a little bird poopie on his shoulder?)
He didn’t keep it hid(sic) because he DID report it on other forms.
Interesting comparison between those who support one candidate over another:
Trump plays both sides, politically, with money and influence; equals just being realistic, everybody does it.
Cruz Pacs receive donations from the same types and he is bought and paid for, in the bag.
Why is that?
Wow! Freepers are now shilling for left-wing groups like ‘Democracy 21’? There was a time where I would have expected this on DU but not here. Clearly that time is gone. The world had changed. And now we have leftists like Fred Wertheimer given a stage here at FreeRepublic. Unbelievable. And even worse, Trump supporters are drinking this kool-aid up.
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.