Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Campaign Watchdog Group Files FEC Complaint–Cruz Failure To Disclose
The Conservative Treehouse ^ | 1/20/16 | Sundance

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


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: buyinglawsuits; buyingnomination; cruz; election; election2016; fec; irs; sundance; tedcruz; trickytrump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-250 next last
To: Duchess47

I don’t know as much on the Citibank loan. I do know that the Goldman Sachs loan that many here have been criticizing Cruz for was a margin loan.


21 posted on 01/20/2016 10:46:55 PM PST by dschapin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: M. Thatcher

Uh oh, what is going on in here?

Mark for later reading.


22 posted on 01/20/2016 10:49:23 PM PST by chris37 (heartless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M. Thatcher
The article said unsecured signature loans were the issue. As I understand it these loans were against their own assets, specifically stocks they owned. In addition these weren't campaign loans. The campaign didn't pay them back nor was it obligated to. And last but not least, these loans were disclosed on other documents. That's the only reason the reporters found the discrepancy. They looked at the other documents that reported the loans and found those loans missing on the FEC form.
23 posted on 01/20/2016 10:52:22 PM PST by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IAMNO1
So hypothetically, if a Billionaire who's worth far, far more than any garden variety millionaire did anything wrong whatsoever in regard to his accumulation, accreation and accounting of his billions worth of US Dollars, the EXACT SAME picayune criteria of faux concern would apply, right?

Correct.

24 posted on 01/20/2016 10:52:33 PM PST by M. Thatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: M. Thatcher

The loan had collateral. Hence low risk for the lender and therefore low interest rate.

I just love the innuendo with no facts.


25 posted on 01/20/2016 10:54:33 PM PST by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: M. Thatcher
I suspect Trump knows a little more about this issue than he's letting on at the moment.

I agree, that is Trump's m.o.


26 posted on 01/20/2016 10:55:49 PM PST by 867V309 (Trump: Bull in a RINO Shoppe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DB
"The failure to report these loans is a clear cut violation of the law and kept voters in the dark about the money behind the Cruz campaign," Paul Ryan, the center's deputy executive director, said in a news release. "If he also used his wife's assets to obtain these unreported loans, he caused his committee to accept illegal excessive contributions from his wife."

The Hill: Watchdogs file complaint against Cruz on undisclosed loans

27 posted on 01/20/2016 10:56:30 PM PST by M. Thatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: M. Thatcher

I know that at least the Goldman Sachs loan was for a higher interest rate than most margin loans.


28 posted on 01/20/2016 10:58:34 PM PST by dschapin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DB
I just love the innuendo with no facts.

The fact is that a complaint has been filed.

Newsworthy, whether you like it or not.

Watchdogs file complaint against Cruz on undisclosed loans

29 posted on 01/20/2016 10:58:55 PM PST by M. Thatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: IAMNO1

Hey, Trump has only defaulted on a few billion in loans... But hey, Cruz made a documentation error and he’s crooked as hell...

This has nothing to do with the hate here for Cruz. There is something else and this is just vent to express it. Never mind the truth.

What I find amazing is so many here are so willing to bend the truth far out of shape to justify their hate for the man.


30 posted on 01/20/2016 10:59:09 PM PST by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dschapin
From The Hill (linked above):

While Cruz claimed that he and his wife had liquidated their "entire net worth," and put it into the campaign, the Campaign Legal Center said it appears he used both personal and joint assets to secure loans from the two banks and then failed to disclose he had done so.

31 posted on 01/20/2016 11:00:39 PM PST by M. Thatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: M. Thatcher

I didn’t deny that fact.

I notice you didn’t address anything in my post. Basically some important details that the article fails to mention...

Anything goes to win. The ends justify the means. Enjoy your victory.


32 posted on 01/20/2016 11:01:19 PM PST by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DB
Hey, Trump has only defaulted on a few billion in loans... But hey, Cruz made a documentation error and he’s crooked as hell...

Hey, Trump legally conducted his transactions; Cruz didn't.


33 posted on 01/20/2016 11:05:52 PM PST by 867V309 (Trump: Bull in a RINO Shoppe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: M. Thatcher

“Correct.”

Somehow, I don’t believe you. Look me up when that story hits. It will, you know?


34 posted on 01/20/2016 11:06:18 PM PST by IAMNO1 (Enough with the divisions. Lets get somebody in there who'll fix this mess.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: M. Thatcher

Yes, he and his wife used their personal assets to secure their personal loans. That’s what I was saying.


35 posted on 01/20/2016 11:07:23 PM PST by dschapin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: M. Thatcher

These loans were just a way to get money out of their investments without having to deal with the tax consequences of actually selling their stocks. This is a very normal and non controversial way for someone to put their investments to use for them.


36 posted on 01/20/2016 11:09:59 PM PST by dschapin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: M. Thatcher

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...


37 posted on 01/20/2016 11:11:25 PM PST by myself6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: myself6

I hear you.


38 posted on 01/20/2016 11:14:10 PM PST by IAMNO1 (Enough with the divisions. Lets get somebody in there who'll fix this mess.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: DB

According to the Times, this is the crux of the matter, since the FEC forms would have been the only thing linking the loans to the campaign and they were the ones without the information. Nobody would care if the voters hadn’t been deceived.


39 posted on 01/20/2016 11:14:31 PM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 867V309

Chess.


40 posted on 01/20/2016 11:16:13 PM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-250 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson