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
Can I have some fries with that Nothing Burger?
AKA a non-sequitur. Get a lot of those around here.
That justification will not work as the real issue most people have is that we are damn tired of politicians who are not held to the same standards/regulations as we the voters have to obey. I am damn tired of politicians breaking laws and suffering no consequence when we are subject to every damn law/reg they make.
“This was freakin’ loan against his securities, nothing more. How innoculous!”
Innoculous indeed!
............
Urban Dictionary
innoculous
A thing or action (esp a design decision) that once seemed rather reasonable and harmless, but over a longer period of time has proven itself to be categorically f**ked in every way imaginable.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=innoculous
The logic of a Cruz fan is amazing.
Simply amazing! Many of the Cruz fans were big Sara Palin fans. How is that going now she supports Trump? I was just wondering about that? Any ideas?
“Fuck you trump ass liberal mother fuckers. So i get kicked from FR... it seems that FR has become something OTHER than a conservative wib site.. farewell...”
Well good riddance! Here’s hoping you get zotted!
“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.”
You really believe that? If what you say is true, it calls to question whether or not Cruz has the abilty to be president. That job has more balls in the air than any I can think of. I will say in closing,
I think that the rhetoric here on FR between those who favor Trump and those who favor Cruz is way past being over the top. The charges and countercharges mostly have no basis in fact, and now one guy has gone so far as to call the other side “ a bunch of Commie MFs!” Thankfully, he’s gone from the scene courtesy of JimRob, but everyone else needs to take a deep breath and behave like human beings. The “distruction” of FR shouldn’t be part of what’s going on. Everyone needs to get a life!
Well you recall she endorsed John McCain’s senate run too. One of the most vile men in the senate.
I made excuses for her then. But I eventually learn from being burned. You?
So trashing Trump is raising his history eh? Trump has taken both side of practically every position he’s talked about over the years. But the latest are his “true” positions...
You’ve hitched your wagon to a New York liberal, enjoy. You’re going to need some pain killers and something to make it easier to swallow as this progresses. In a couple of years you’re going to wonder how you got betrayed again. Just go look in the mirror.
Well his money comes from his businesses. How exactly how do you magically separate the defaults and loans from his campaign now? There’s an FEC complaint about that right now.
So virtually the one guy that stands up to Obama and the GOPe is a failure because he couldn’t get enough support is what your saying. Support from people like you who ran the other way...
LOL....acceptable excuse.
Sigh.
His businesses are separate entities. His personal money is separate from his businesses. That’s why small businesses set up LLCs and larger ones are incorporated. It’s business 101.
I have no idea who or what you are referring to in your 2nd paragraph.
Good question.....probably not.
Politicians get a pass....again.
How nice. Those “entities” are legal constructs. Those business entities are his. His wealth comes from them. He funds his campaign with his wealth - and with my money pandering for more ethanol...
Every time I get a reply from a Cruz supporter that claims to be “Conservative”, I get a little more disgusted with the man himself. A man I would trust and respect simply wouldn’t even attract such unprincipled and hateful followers.
My post 188 to you stated important facts about Trump. None of which did you challenge. Instead you went after the messenger and tried to change the subject without any effort to address the the content of what I wrote.
It is you that is unprincipled.
Do you often base your judgment of a candidate on emotions? Someone makes you angry and you take it out on someone else? And you have the nerve to talk about principles?
So still no answer, just go off in some other direction...
Conservative use to mean someone who supports smaller government and adhering to the limits of the constitution... How often do you hear Trump talking about the constitution or its limits? Trump and his followers are redefining it... Much like the left likes to redefine words...
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.