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
I never said otherwise.
Thank you, xzins.
After all of that Palin-bashing, I’m feeling less empathetic this morning.
‘Cruz knows a lot about constitutional law but he is not a campaign finance law expert.’
I agree, but ...
EVERYONE ...
!
!
The spin thrown out earlier was exactly how Cruz would have handled this if he won the primary unvetted. Better to clear the air now than later.
!
!
And BTW ... I imagine most congress members are vulnerable to campaign finance scandals. It’s a legal minefield that the Ruling Class can use to take out threats by Cruz.
URG ...
... aminefield the Ruling Class can use to take out threats LIKE Cruz.
It’s not old news because 2012 was when he was elected senator and he still holds that seat, based on votes by voters who were not fully informed.
I hope that diminishes. Very hard to stomach.
It was being sarcastic...
2012 and before is off limit for Trump’s past because it’s “old news”. Trump the new immigration champion was bashing Romney for being “mean spirited” to illegals in that same year. How things have changed...
Regarding Natural Born Status
There are two goalposts on this issue, not one.
1. The Courts ... the one Cruz can win.
2. Public Dissent ... the one Cruz AND his supporters will never shake off their legs.
People don’t respect the courts.
FRegards ....
Could you imagine if Cruz slipped through this primary unvetted and tried the same spin control in October?
Maybe a polished politician would hide behind proxy accusers, but Trump believes in being up front about his accusations. I respect that.
I am sure there is not one singe deal Trump has ever made that can be questioned /s
Congress will just blow that money on first class five star vacations around the world.
Like the time that Rafael E Ted Cruz flew with the Congressional Black Caucus to the marxist Mandela's funeral.
Go Donald J. Trump
Go Sarah Palin
Go Mercer
FU Glenn Beck you fat sack of crap
Get to it, then.
We don't have much time left.
I do not understand why Trump's competitors aren't doing this.
Cruz said this was a loan against his assets, meaning there is plenty of collateral to seize if the loan goes bad.
How is this unreported loan not collateralized?
It is called keeping your powder dry.
WAIT! WAIT!! HOLD ON!!!!
You forgot your umbrella.
This is to stir the pot. To turn people against him. Just by mentioning Goldman Sachs, Cruz is seen as corrupted.
His taking out loans to finance his Senate campaign is on record, his failure to sign the correct FEC document is an oversight.
So everyone who fails to send in your W2 with your tax filing is also evading paying taxes to the IRS. This is a technicality.
What are they waiting for?
At this rate, Trump could have the nomination wrapped up by the end of February.
I love how “conservatives” want to take down Ted Cruz over a document error.
We’re inundated with paperwork and bureaucracy in our lives and you all fluff up like catbert when a solid, constitutional conservative does it.
Watching my country swirl away.
And raincoat!
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.