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
Yes, I realize that is a possibility. If he did that on purpose, and it is uncovered in an investigation... oh boy, it’s gonna get ugly.
I am for Trump, but I don’t want to see Cruz proven to have participated in something that leaves him disgraced. I really don’t. That would make me sad.
But if he did it, he did it. I’m going to hope that he didn’t.
But then, he also told his supporters that he and Hiedi had completely "LIQUIDATED THEIR ASSETS, IN ORDER TO FUND HIS SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN, whilst the truth of the matter was he was getting BIG BUCKS from billionaire donors and two loans from different banks.
This is disingenuous.
Sundance knows it.
It’s beginning to look that way; sadly.
The big problem is that Cruz has worn masks to hide who and what he really is, but now more and more stuff is coming out about him and his family; all of it VERY worrisome.
OTOH, none of really knew all that much about Cruz, except what he wanted us to know and the lies he has told us.
Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah....Mark probably knows about this and doesn’t care.
Oh my. You sound angry.
He had run for AG, in Texas, but didn't make it. He also worked in W's administration and had to file with the FEC then too.
Take a look at the complaint: which part do you think is disingenuous?
Suuuuuuuuuuuure, he filled out those forms by himself; you're guessing at that! And IF he did, then he's NOT intelligent at all.
If Trump had done this, you would be screaming this site down and calling him all kinds of vile names; so to his supporters.
Smart people make mistakes too. It is what it is.
Anyway isn’t 2012 old news? I can give you few Trump quotes from 2012 that won’t make you too happy either. Particularly about illegals and Romney - of all people - “being mean spirited” towards them... And isn’t immigration nearly everything to you?
And seriously, you think Trump’s empire is an open book?
How many times before have we been betrayed?
Seems like just about every time.
Yeah, I want to hold out hope that there are still honest people. I really do.
It doesn’t look good though. I’m feeling somewhat pessimistic at this point.
I’m pretty sure I heard him say this evening something along the lines of the matter of Cruz’s loans is a pointless issue or distraction or something like that.
That was before this news broke though, I think. I’m going to listen tomorrow and see what he says on it.
I have been posting about what an NBC is, which I know from a government text and many have claimed that I've made it up, lied, etc., but today someone looked it up and posted it and I am correct !
I'm not just "tolerated" here, I am a welcome, long time poster of FACTS. You just don't like my posts.
Working for W wasn’t an elected office and not comparable. AG might count, though that’s only at the state level. Federal elections likely have far more rules/regulations/documents required.
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.