Deal breaker: You fund half your Senate campaign with Goldman Sachs money, but make sure that’s not known till you win.
It wasn’t half his campaign funds and he reported them in July of 2012— well before he won election.
Please try to not be so ignorant. Cruz didn't fund his campaign with "Goldman-Sachs" money. He took out a personal loan, secured by assets he already owned, and donated the proceeds to his campaign, and he paid back the loan with his own money. It is no different than if he took out a 2nd mortgage on his house. The campaign didn't get a loan, and the campaign didn't repay any portion of the loan.
And the fact that he gave that money to his campaign and that it was from a loan was public record at the time. There was no "non-diclosure". The money that was given to the campaign was disclosed to the Senate and to the FEC. The only difference was that they didn't list it as a "loan" on the FEC document while they did in the Senate filing (different forms with different questions). There was actually a reason it was not listed as a loan on the FEC form, and it was not to deceive anyone. Ted took out a personal loan against his own assets and then donated the money to his campaign. Since the campaign did not have to pay the money back, it was not a loan to the campaign, so they didn't list it at such, they just listed the source as personal funds. But apparently the FEC requires you to report if the source of personal funds are from a loan. The point is that there was never any attempt to hide the source of the funds. This was a paperwork error. And Ted did not get some special deal from G-S that gives them some hold over him - this was a secured loan taken out against assets he already owned. The campaign did not repay any of the loan, so none of Ted's donors paid any portion of the loan.