Guess that leaves Donald out too. He took those values things personally.
Desperate Donald Dewhurst, tell us about your bankruptcies.
Geez, I was really hoping for a Trump/Cruz ticket.
Guess those bridges are burning.....
EXCERPTED FROM CONSERVATIVE TREEHOUSE The FEC forms were the only way Texas voters could have known about the loans. Obviously, if the Texas electorate discovered candidate Cruz was using his connections to Goldman Sachs and Citibank (CitiGroup), while simultaneously campaigning against the same institutions, his political opponents would have been able to point to a particular ideological hypocrisy in that regard.
However, this is actually the BIGGER issue. Why does the FEC require a federal candidate to disclose a loan taken out to finance their campaign?
<><> The FEC requires candidates to disclose bank loans taken out to finance their bids for office simply because such loans can be used to subvert campaign finance laws.
<><> If a candidate takes out a loan, in any amount, any entity can repay the loan on the candidate/s behalf – and that’s a way to subvert rules on the amount of contributions.
<><> If, as an example, those who control/influence policy objectives within Goldman Sachs wanted to hold influence upon a candidate, they could simply loan him/her money and then allow repayment by their own group. This is also why FEC rules only allow candidates to take out loans, to finance campaigns, that have traditional collateral to back them up.
Think about it this way. A candidate has $500,000 in traditional assets: a house, bank account, investment account etc. That candidate is, by FEC regs, allowed to take out a $500k loan against such assets. This is traditional loan/collateral, equity, considerations.
A candidate CANNOT, however, 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.
====================================================
Was this second scenario a method for Wall Street, via Goldman Sachs, to put the Ivy League educated husband of one of their employees into office, simply to insure that as a U.S. Senator he was friendly to their interests?
Cruz is brilliant. He knew the Goldman Sachs loan would hurt him if he ever ran for President so he hid it in the most intelligent way possible. OF course since he’s a Republican the Slimes was going to go through all his dirty laundry looking for something, and they got it.
It’s not a nothing burger, but it’s also not deal breaker. It does take the shine off Cruz a little, and exposes his ties to Goldman Sachs, right at the time hes’ launching attacks on Trump’s NEW YORK VALUES...
FAilure to properly disclose loans is a legitimate problem. It looks bad for a banker and an attorney to try to say they made a mistake on something very simple. Plus where was their accountant?
Ted just has a problem keeping his ‘convictions’ straight. Cruz was instrumental in sticking us with John Roberts and now he’s weaseling out of it.
[snip]Presidential candidate and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) apparently used to have a very different opinion about Chief Justice John Roberts than he expressed on Thursday.
According to a 2005 Sun-Sentinel report, Cruz once praised Roberts as “one of the best constitutional minds in the country.”
Cruz reportedly made that comment while explaining why, as a domestic policy adviser for George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign, he brought Roberts to Florida to assist with his team’s legal battle over the controversial post-election recount.
And as the Texas Tribune reported three years ago, when Bush nominated Roberts to the Supreme Court in 2005, Cruz “was an outspoken advocate for his confirmation, calling him ‘brilliant’ and a ‘lawyer’s lawyer.’”
“As an individual, John Roberts is undoubtedly a principled conservative, as is the president who appointed him,” Cruz wrote at the time in the National Review. “But, as a jurist, Judge Roberts’s approach will be that of his entire career: carefully, faithfully applying the Constitution and legal precedent.”
Cruz, now running a fiercely conservative campaign for president, seemed to have a much different take on Roberts on Thursday when the Supreme Court issued its second major ruling protecting the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare....
http://www.businessinsider.com/ted-cruz-is-bashing-john-roberts-after-years-of-praising-him-2015-6
To me the Goldman Sachs things is important. They give him the money, he “loans” it to his campaign, he pays it back whenever he wants (still hasn’t paid it off) at I assume near zero interest. Corporations can’t contribute to candidates and individuals are capped at $2500. Basically it’s a laundered unlimited campaign contribution. How much more influence does Goldman and Citicorp get when they come in at $1 million? He’d get shredded in the general over this.