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?
Name a better way to increase your profit margin and corporate influence than become the president?
That sword has two edges and both are cutting Republican candidates. Hillary and Bernie thank you for the free campaign fodder.