Excerpt:
A candidate CANNOT take out an unsecured signature loan for their campaign.
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.
Therein lies the rub.
Who said they were “unsecured” loans? They were fully secured loans on the Cruz’s assets. They were not made to the campaign and the campaign was not in any way responsible for paying the loans.
You're right. That's why Cruz used his own assets to secure the loan.
Maybe you could have the first idea of what you're talking about before you post on such things.
A margin account loan is NOT an unsecured loan. The bporrower has to have sufficient collateral in the account to cover the value, and if the account assets fall in value while used a loan collateral , a margin call is issued and the borrower has to make up the difference.
CRUZ LOANED HIMSELF THE MONEY .. FROM HIS OWN ACCOUNTS.
There is nothing irregular about it.
The problem is that these were margin loans, which means they were secured loans.
Yes for Cruz’s sake better hope he fully collateralized both of those loans.