Posted on 01/20/2016 10:12:28 PM PST by M. Thatcher
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.
cruz goldman sachs
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. View this document on Scribd
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?
cruz donors 2
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…
ted and heidi kiss
Ted lied to everyone, when running for the Senate, we now find out; so I'm getting very leery of him and what he says.
True, but it nevertheless did NOT make him a stranger to government forms. You just can’t say OOOOPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPSSSS, I goofed and forgot to fill in that blank. And, IF he was so “new” at this, he should have gotten expert help.
No if Trump had done this I wouldn’t be saying much one way or the other. There is an FEC complaint against Trump right now. I’ve said pretty much zip about it.
And I said I was guessing about whether he personally filled out the forms or not. I was simply offering a theory of what might have happened and said as much. I didn’t say that it was what happened.
Regarding vile names, find where I called Trump a vile name. Really, give it a go. As “vile” as I got was calling him a liberal.
Again, just throwing crap out there hoping something sticks.
I dismissed it when it happened as politicking for Team Jeb!, but now it gives me pause. What if it's a red flag?
“And bad people lie to get ahead.”
You really want to go there?
Trump praises, plays golf and does business with Bill, Hillary, de Blasio and many more vile evil people to “get ahead”.
So when he praised these people was he lying to get ahead or being sincere?
Yeah, it's Salon, but the legal analysis needs to go into the mix.
Yes, I know and I was shocked and angry at W, when he did that.
But now I’m wondering just WHY he did, because this really isn’t about jebbie, which I too believed it was.
I don’t trust Mark to tell the truth about it either.
I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t mention it at all.
Sleepy time for me.
“I do NOT make anything up at all.”
Wow... Nothing at all...
Here’s a lie from you about Ronald Reagan:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3385437/posts?page=273#273
The government of these United States of America hands out study guides to those who are about to take the Naturalization exam. I know someone who took it 10 years ago. He told me, back then, about the whole NBC thing ( quoted from the book ) and unless the government has passed new laws since then, that I kn ow NOTHING about, it's so today!
Now remember, please, this was back in 2005, neither Obama nor Cruz was in a presidential primary, nobody had ANY axes to grind, the info was just between this man and me, because his wife was pregnant at that time ( and yes, he passed the test with flying colors !) and he had become a citizen before his pregnant wife gave birth, months later. He was really just thrilled to become an American citizen, but when he learned that his child might, one day, if he wanted to, could run for the presidency, that was the cherry on top for him.
A lie, is that Trump is a "COMMIE".
A lie is that Trump has dual citizenship.
A lie is that I make things up.
Lie after LIED after LIE, several of thousands that Cruz supporters post every single day here!
Good night, pleasant dreams.......
Not lame at all. You dodged the question.
You use innuendo to say Cruz lied to get ahead verses making a mistake. Never mind there isn’t a history of similar behavior by him... You assume the worst on the first offence.
Now Trump on the other hand most definitely praised, donated money to and socialized with some very vile evil people, particularly the Clintons. There’s a long list of others. I’m told he did all things because that’s what it takes to do business in New York. Or in other words to get ahead... But none of that counts at all... In spite of long history of the same behavior. Yet Cruz is the dirty one...
So really, perhaps you shouldn’t go there...
Oh, you goofed up the date did you.
I pointed out repeatedly that it was wrong and you demanded that it was correct and that you weren’t “stupid” in return.
You never corrected your “goof up” either. That’s what honest people do when someone points out it is in error.
It is all there to review. So at this point I don’t believe it was a mistake. I think it was to mislead people who don’t know better.
You have a history of doing that.
Cruz knows a lot about constitutional law but he is not a campaign finance law expert. He was just a first time candidate busy with a hectic campaign so I am not at all surprised that he did not realize that he had to report the personal loans that he took out against his own personal assets to the FEC.
BTW, taking out a personal loan against your personal investments and then taking that money and most of the cash from your bank accounts and loaning it to your campaign is liquidating your assets to fund your campaign. The bank loans were to him personally and his personal investments were the collateral that he would lose if he was not personally able to pay them back.
That hasn’t been determined yet.
Can I assume that you’re not one of Ted’s evangelical supporters?
Also, just exactly what is this ‘conservative wib site’ you speak of?
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.