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
So they go after Cruz for this, but another person is lying about Benghazi, had her own server, deleted e-mails, lied to families who lost loved one, hell the list is endless.
Another is a whack job old socialist who has not been asked how he can pay for all his freebies.
To me this is nothing about Cruz and all about bringing him down.
Vet Trump and get sued. Ask the Washington Post. Cruz dared to stand up to Mitch and the establishment so of course he has to go.
There was no "non-diclosure". The money that was given to the campaign was disclosed to the Senate and to the FEC. The only difference was that they didn't list it as a "loan" on the FEC document while they did in the Senate filing (different forms with different questions).
There was actually a reason it was not listed as a loan on the FEC form, and it was not to deceive anyone. Ted took out a personal loan against his own assets and then donated the money to his campaign. Since the campaign did not have to pay the money back, it was not a loan to the campaign, so they didn't list it at such, they just listed the source as personal funds. But apparently the FEC requires you to report if the source of personal funds are from a loan.
The point is that there was never any attempt to hide the source of the funds. This was a paperwork error. And Ted did not get some special deal from G-S that gives them some hold over him - this was a secured loan taken out against assets he already owned. The campaign did not repay any of the loan, so none of Ted's donors paid any portion of the loan. Overall, this is a big nothing-burger.
Trump’s not the one who failed to disclose campaign $$.
Spot on.
thanks Jane
Call it leadership. Play by book.
He did report them on his Senate disclosure.
Sorry, The loans were never reported as campaign related. Now last night on Levin Cruz is saying the money was used for TV ads. Team Cruz needs to get their story straight and release all documentation related to potentially “crony capitalist” loans.
NO CONTROLLING LEGAL AUTHORITY.
No need to worry.
This is old news. Already been reported.
No need to worry.
Gee, where have we heard this before?
Cruz is personally on the hook for his bank loan and has personally been paying it back even though the campaign could only pay Cruz back a portion of what Cruz loaned to his campaign. In other words, Cruz used a lot of his own personal money to finance his campaign. He just borrowed against his stocks instead of selling them outwrite and suffering the tax consequences. Taking out a margin loan against your investment account is one of the best ways use your investments without getting killed with taxes.
Getting loan is not a problem. If that loan is transferred to Heidi’s personal account and then transferred to campaign account. In that case, it will be considered as personal donation to campaign and limit is $2700 only. But loan amount is in millions.
We don’t know how they transferred money.
At this stage of campaign , every stupidity counts.
This is also called vetting process.
Which he’s in the process of doing.
How’s that FEC complaint against Trump working out? You know, where he’s using his crony capitalist lawyers to do campaign work off the books?
These loans were disclosed on the filing to Senate but omitted on the FEC filing.
So they weren’t in total obscurity, but the campaign did fail to disclose as required
on the FEC filing.
Trump isn’t casting United States Senate votes in support of “crony capitalists”. Senator Principled Conservative (TM) is. That’s why the Goldman & Citibank loans are way more serious potentially.
Cruz needs to clear the air and release all info relating to the loans including the full loan apps. On what basis did Citi offer him a large unsecured loan? Primary voters have a right to know if he is being truthful.
Getting loan is not a problem. If that loan is transferred to Heidi’s personal account and then transferred to campaign account. In that case, it will be considered as personal donation to campaign and limit is $2700 only. But loan amount is in millions.
We don’t know how they transferred money.
At this stage of campaign , every stupidity counts.
This is also called vetting process.
Exactly. The spin changes by the minute. One minute it’s a personal loan. The next minute Cruz is on Levin saying the money was used to buy critical TV ads. Which is it? This reminds me so much of the TPA debate when Team Cruz let out a flood of half truths and lies by omission.
This just doesn’t add up and we need to get to the bottom of it.
Educate yourself. Listen to Mark Levin.
A spokesperson for Cruz said his failure to report the loans to the FEC was "inadvertent" and said he would be filing supplementary paperwork.[97]
Will Cruz be required to say what 'donors' gave him the money to pay off the loan when he files?
Why do you come to the conclusion someone has to hate Ted for them to come to the conclusion he failed to report something that is required?
It was required, and what has that to do with Trump?
Nobody is being unfair to Ted. He was obligated to report the loans and didn’t. Trump was not involved. Ted and Heidi were.
Trump declared bankruptcy at four of his hotels. They were doing poorly in a bad economy and he took advantage of a legal procedure.
LEGAL!
Ted did something wrong, so you address something Trump did that was legal.
That made sense to you?
>>“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.â€
I’m in favor of a flat tax, too. Does that implicate me?
Actually, a flat tax is my second choice. I’m in favor of completely eliminating the IRS and all income taxes and intrusion into our privacy and moving to a consumption tax which would require EVERYONE to pay (citizen, illegal, tourist, ...) The government has no business prying into my personal life, my finances, my family, my investments, my health, my mortgage, my home improvements, my education, how many miles I drive for business, or any other facet of my life, which is what they do via the income tax.
I've been on jury duty all week. It may take awhile.
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.