The New York Times outlines another loan for Senate Candidate Ted Cruz that was “Inadvertently Omitted” in 2012 by the campaign team of Heidi and Ted Cruz. But, no-one seems to ask the key question “why”?
There are two issues behind the Wall Street loans which Ted Cruz omitted from his campaign finance disclosures to the FEC, neither of which have anything to do with a candidate taking out an equity line of credit.
♦ The first key issue is a matter of political integrity. In 2012 Senate candidate Ted Cruz was campaigning against big banks, bank bailouts specifically, and taxpayer funded bailouts in general.
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, the second issue, is actually the BIGGER issue.
Why does the FEC require a federal candidate to disclose a loan taken out to finance their campaign?
Within the answer is where you will find the GREATER concern.
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.
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?
I’ll leave those answers up to you….
(Via New York Times) The Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, already facing scrutiny for not disclosing a Goldman Sachs loan he used for his 2012 Senate campaign, also failed to disclose a second loan, from Citibank, for the same race, according to a letter he sent Thursday to federal election officials.
The one-page letter said that the “underlying source” of money for a series of personal loans Mr. Cruz made to his Senate campaign in Texas included both bank loans, which totaled as much as $1 million. Both loans were “inadvertently omitted” from the required filings, the letter said. Previously, Mr. Cruz has only acknowledged using the loan from Goldman for his campaign.
The latest disclosure casts further doubt on his oft-stated story of having liquidated his entire family savings of slightly more than $1 million to fuel a come-from-behind win in the Republican primary. The tale has become part of a campaign narrative of a populist, scrappy Mr. Cruz putting everything on the line to overcome a wealthy establishment opponent. (read more)