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
Bookmark
The bad news keeps piling on for Senator Cruz. The true test of a leader is how he handles the challenges. I Senator Cruz is able to keep up the good fight.
There is a reason for the non-disclosure. And whenever I see heidi, I can’t help think sleaze.
Im totally for Trump. Now, that out of the way, I see this story and think of Obama bundlers collecting and laundering tens of millions in the Palestinian areas of the west back. I think if the CLintons and the Chinese. I think of AlGore and think of the Buddhist temple.
We are a banana republic. They go after Cruz.
I’m relieved that someone is looking into this. I was afraid the Citibank loan was being overlooked completely.
The smartest man in the room, a Harvard grad and a constitutional scholar did not know he was a Canadian and can’t seem to file a campaign finance form correctly to save his life. I think he may be overrated a bit.
This was not an unsecured loan. It was secured against the stocks and bonds in the Cruz’s investment account. Sundance can dance around as much as he wants but the truth is that margin loan such as the one that Cruz got from Goldman Sachs is about the least controversial type of loan out there. It doesn’t even require a loan officer to sign off on it.
The Citibank loan, as I understand it, was a signature loan.
“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.”
How sinister. Again, as a Trump supporter, if Cruz wins, ill support him as Jim Thompson :) asked us to today, and I hope he slays the IRS.
Follow the Mercer/donor $$.
Bookmark. BTTT.
What’s going on with Harvard and the U.S. Senate? Are they just foreign laundering machines for the usurpation of POTUS.....This is getting downright bizarre.
You know what I mean I think. Dems do tens and hundreds of millions in money from red China and Saudi Arabia and from Palestinians.
And though Cruz is not my guy they get out the green eyeshade and get to work on him borrowing against his own assets in the bank.
They have already turned on Trump too, claiming that him riding in his own plane is Trump inc donating in kind illegally.
The party continues,,,
“This is not the America I grew up in.”
Yes it is. Hillary Clinton and her gang chased Nixon from office, preached about good government and corruption, and won veto proof congressional Democrat landslides in 1974. Before that we had twenty years of Earl Warren legislating from the bench. We just don’t have much of a say now and back then we thought we did.
Trump at one of his recent rallies mentioned something to the effect that the GS and Citi loans were 'low interest'. From what I gathered in the complaint, 'low interest' (if code for lower than customary and ordinary rates) is illegal per se.
I suspect Trump knows a little more about this issue than he's letting on at the moment. If so, it would make sense for him to wait until the next debate to drop whatever bombs he has. This is a sketchy deal...
Cool! 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? Gee, I can’t wait for the oppo research of the Dims to hit to see the very same concerned citizens here apply equal indignation toward those travesties uncovered. This was freakin’ loan against his securities, nothing more. How innoculous! I wonder what a Billionaire, in comparison to a lowly millionaire, could have compiled in his lifetime?
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.