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 ...
Then you have nothing to worry about, then do you?
CRUZ LOANED HIMSELF THE MONEY .. FROM HIS OWN ACCOUNTS.
There is nothing irregular about it.
Understand and agree.
BTW shouldn't knowingly perpetuating a proven lie about a candidate be considered a dirty campaign trick?
Talk about old news. The loans have been public record since before he was elected senator. The fact that he reported them on one set of forms but not on another has been well known for weeks. This is another #TrumperTantrum from well-known Trump lackey sundance, trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Please ping me too with your hourly count reports. They’ll be checked for accuracy.
The problem is that these were margin loans, which means they were secured loans.
Are,they coming after me for having a home loan next? Not everyone is a wealthy democrat.
You’ve posted this at least seven times, so obviously you ARE worried. It’s going to be a long month. It might be hard, but you’ll be okay.
Oh my .. why would you want them to do that .. it’s so much more fun to read how stupid they are.
And .. thank you Col. Flagg .. you are so correct:
CRUZ LOANED HIMSELF THE MONEY .. FROM HIS OWN ACCOUNTS.
There is nothing irregular about it.
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.
“Because the author, Trump campaign staffer “sundance,†hates Cruz and looks for any way to demean him”
Cruz makes it easy and gives lots of ammo.
C’mon. We all want to replace the GOPe. Why does everyone have to get so sensitive if someone has a different choice.
“Can’t we all just get along”. Rodney King
I find it very difficult to come online and see all the negativism. It is easier to stay away.
Well, good luck with your “big deal”.
Do you know he is still a Canadian citizen?
I don’t answer strawman questions.
“The Citibank loan, also for as much as $500,000, was a line of credit, and it is not clear from Mr. Cruz’s letter what collateral, if any, was used to obtain it. Mr. Cruz’s presidential campaign has declined to answer questions from The Times about the Citibank loan.”
America has been economically gang banged and in decline for decades, but you’re tired of the negativism?
You’re a Cruz supporter right?
Worse.
He’s some blogger with an anti-conservative agenda.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/author/sundancecracker/page/2/
“A lie right off the bat.
Next.”
Everybody doesn’t know? What is the lie?
If the loan was for the wife— wouldn’t it become marital property and thus would enable Cruz to use it?
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.