Candidate Donald Trump begins to frame the argument against John Boehner’s personal attorney, Ted Cruz, by pointing out Cruz’s dishonesty.
The issues Donald Trump brings up around the Goldman Sachs and Citibank unreported loans will eventually lead to the general electorate understanding what lies at the heart of all Cruz’s irreconcilable political policy, votes and flip-flops.
Notice how all of the Cruz advocates are pushing the undisclosed loan terms as “equity loans” against assets; this is a factually false but necessary assertion. Candidate loans for federal election campaigns without collateral (essentially signature loans) are illegal, and forbidden by campaign finance rules and laws.
Secondly, the same advocates are stuck between a rock and a hard place. If you are to accept the false premise the loans were personal loans secured against assets – the problem remains: how did Ted Cruz repay them?
As of 2015, the base salary for all rank-and-file members of the U.S. House and Senate is $174,000 per year, plus benefits. (link)
A candidate cannot use campaign contributions, collected under the auspices of a campaign fund, to repay his/her personal loans. So how exactly did Ted Cruz “repay” at least $750k in unsecured loans -to himself- if he didn’t use campaign contributions?
Reminder: […] 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. This is the influence of DARK MONEY.
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? Did they hold sway?
• 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? Was not voting on the issue a matter of influence?
• 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 purchased majority ownership in Breitbart, and 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?
[ Remember the movie “The Pelican Brief”? Cruz-life imitates art. ]
Those become the bigger questions to consider when asking yourself why would such a brilliant legal expert, a very smart lawyer like attorney Ted Cruz, with an entire team of smart lawyer and legal advisers, just inadvertently omit such a report to the FEC.
It does not matter that he reported the loans on his Senate Finance disclosures – those reports are only designed for transparency in legislative conflicts of interest. That type of disclosure has nothing to do with Federal Election Commission (FEC) required campaign finance disclosures.
Wouldn’t an equally sharp lawyer/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 Wall Street financial firm, Goldman Sachs, also identify the concern?
Considering the filed annual income, and considering the law regarding campaign finance, how exactly did these “personal loans” get paid back?
This is only the tippy top of that iceberg.