As the field of GOP candidate for president dwindled down to four, Sen. Ted Cruz started demanding that front-runner Donald Trump release his tax returns in the interest of transparency. However, while Cruz wants transparency from The Donald, there’s something major he’s refusing to do, and it has people wondering why.
Most everyone following the current GOP primaries is aware that Cruz “forgot” to disclose $1.3 million in “loans” from Goldman Sachs and Citibank during the 2011/2012 elections, which ultimately ended up with him winning a seat in the Senate. Cruz claims that the failure was an “accidental oversight,” but a recent report appears to show something much different.
Yahoo! News has more:
Ted Cruz has rebuffed a request by the Federal Election Commission to disclose more information about some $1 million in loans he received from two major Wall Street banks during his 2012 Senate campaign.
In a letter to the FEC this week, the treasurer of Cruz’s 2012 campaign turned down a request by agency auditors to reveal in writing “the complete terms” of two personal loans Cruz received from Goldman Sachs and Citibank — the proceeds of which, he has since acknowledged, he used to finance his upstart race for the Senate.
Why is this important? Well, Cruz’s campaign is essentially saying it’s going to slow walk the information by going through the FEC’s enforcement mechanism rather than the compliance division – a process that takes well over a year to complete. This way, any damaging information wouldn’t be revealed until after the November elections, and Cruz remains protected, should he end up getting the GOP nod for a White house run.
Pretty sketchy, right? We think so too.
But while an “accidental omission” wouldn’t necessarily be an issue, the consequences from an inaccurate filing would be. Additionally, one has to wonder why it is Ted and Heidi Cruz chose to hide the source of their campaign funds from the FEC.
The Last Refuge has more on why this poses an issue for the Cruz campaign:
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.
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.
All of this begs the question; did the Wall Street banks fund Cruz’s campaign so they could wield more influence in the Senate? Well, that’s up to you to decide, but consider this; Cruz has a brilliant legal mind, and his wife is equally sharp, so how could these two extremely smart people inadvertently omit such a filing to the FEC, knowing the legal consequences that would arise?
Therein lies the problem, and that’s what makes this entire situation all the more shady.
“Honest Ted?” The more we learn about him, the less that seems to be the case.