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
Thank you Jim. This site and your commitment to God and this great country deserves better postings than we are seeing lately. God Bless you and thank you for your service.
Don’t be judgmental..this is conservative values on display.
Why not?
Because it isn’t in the left’s or MSM’s interest to it at this time. Their target is the nominee not the primary guys. They’re laying low for the time being.
Learn to read please. The loans were secured.
This was his first go at filling out all the forms for running for office wasn’t it? I would guess there are many...
Most candidates probably hire a lawyer that does that sort of thing. Cruz apparently didn’t because he is a lawyer...
Let’s find out if these loans really had to be reported or not as personal loans instead of campaign loans - I certainly don’t know.
Forget the left and the MSM. There are multiple competitive GOP campaigns with mega-multimillion-dollar PACs. It is in THEIR interest to target their rivals, especially the front-runner.
Yet there are many news stories documenting the mysterious fact that none of these PACs are spending money against Trump.
Why not?
I know the loans were secured. But that doesn’t matter to those who will only read about this FEC complaint.
“Did you hear? They want an INVESTIGATION into ILLEGAL campaign finances. That can’t be good.” (Heck, half the Freepers fall for this crap.)
Sorry to tell you, the post you responded to was sarcasm...
The key was, the seriousness of the charge is all that matters... A common refrain from the left... Charge something outlandish and demand an investigation. When the truth finally comes out the damage is already done. That’s how the left slimes people. It’s been their MO for a long time.
Page 35 of 2012 version FEC rules require reporting of personal loans made to a candidate when such funds are then used by the campaign. There is some gray area if the candidate takes out the loan for personal expenses after emptying bank accounts. Since the amounts made do not exactly match with checks Cruz wrote to his campaign, it is quite possible that not all of the money went to the campaign.
also, I’ve yet to meet a single Senate, House or PResidential candidate who filled out his/her own disclosure forms. That doesn’t absolve Cruz of the misreporting issue, but it should be kept in mind.
OUCH !
Apologies, apparently my sarcasm meter is broken.
Thank you. I’m only guessing Cruz filled out his own forms.
A, when you spend all your money and take loans against your assets you are poor... If you don’t pay it back your assets are gone.
So a newbie filling out forms to run for office for the first time makes a mistake and you only attribute that error to the most vile motivations possible.
Why is that?
I don’t know either to be perfectly honest with you.
I really don’t know anything about this and am learning about it while reading this thread, so I am pretty much in the dark completely at this point.
True, and FEC complaints are common. There's at least one against Trump:
FEC complaint: Trump uses corporate money for campaign's 'dirty work'
Re Obama, this Cruz stuff is beginning to sound an awful LOT like the Tony Rezko and several banks, scandals and sweetheart deals.
So the score is 1 to 1... ;-)
You are so full of crap. You just make stuff up and hope it sticks. I don’t know why you’re tolerated around here.
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.