Posted on 02/03/2016 2:25:15 PM PST by FR_addict
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.
Update! Today the FEC requested information from the Cruz campaign, with a response due by March 8th: 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...
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...
Why is “loans” in quotation marks?
Because this has become a psycho web site.
Why is “loans” in quotation marks?
Maybe it’s as in wink, wink.
Yes! Let justice be served.
Conservative Treehouse has gone psycho.
Why did they stop writing about Oregon?
Heh.
Well played!
Because the author, Trump campaign staffer “sundance,” hates Cruz and looks for any way to demean him.
Seems like he did this to not discourage Tea Party Movement people from helping him win the senate.
Speaking for myself who was at Tea Parties at which Cruz spoke, I would have still wanted him as a senator.
I think for now that is his job, and he should concentrate on it and work for the grass roots of the USA as he promised.
He failed on that in Mississippi which was a shame.
“The “accidental omission” is not necessarily the problem. The irreconcilable consequences from an accurate filing are the larger issue.”
Ted’s loans are rearing their ugly head again. Couple this with the fraudulent mailer and his campaign saying that Carson was dropping out of the race. Also saying that Trump wants to bomb Denmark. WOW! Talk about a campaign that is derailing.
Sundance.
Enough said.
a watch dog group has now filed a complaint with the FEC which is step one to beginning an FEC investigation.
Good. He should be above the law. I don’t wish him more then 10 years in jail. I am a nice guy after all.
Excerpt:
A candidate CANNOT take out an unsecured signature loan for their campaign.
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.
I’ve seen your graphic on a few posts now, But have been remiss in telling you how good it is! Love it.
Are you going to spam that on every thread or stop after 20 or so?
A lie right off the bat.
Next.
Because the CitiBank line-of-credit load was reported by Cruz to the Senate without identifying the collateral. FEC rules forbid unsecured loans because they can be used to launder contributions in excess of the Federal limits.
As for the Goldman Sacks loan, it is not clear whether or not this was a joint account with his wife, Heidi. If it was a joint account, or worse, if it was her account, then Heidi violated the FEC limits on contributions.
So all in all, this is a big deal.
Red State anti-Trump, Canadian, Ted Mean, Goldman Sachs, Sue over Iowa, Red State anti-Trump, Goldman Sachs, Ted Mean, Sue over being Canadian, Goldman Sachs, Red State anti-Trump, Canadian, Goldman Sachs.
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.