Ted Cruz Didn’t Disclose Loan From Goldman Sachs for His First Senate Campaign

[UCmeNdc]

This is illegal!

A review of personal financial disclosures that Mr. Cruz filed later with the Senate does not find a liquidation of assets that would have accounted for all the money he spent on his campaign. What it does show, however, is that in the first half of 2012, Ted and Heidi Cruz obtained the low-interest loan from Goldman Sachs, as well as another one from Citibank. The loans totaled as much as $750,000 and eventually increased to a maximum of $1 million before being paid down later that year. There is no explanation of their purpose.

Neither loan appears in reports the Ted Cruz for Senate Committee filed with the Federal Election Commission, in which candidates are required to disclose the source of money they borrow to finance their campaigns. Other campaigns have been investigated and fined for failing to make such disclosures, which are intended to inform voters and prevent candidates from receiving special treatment from lenders. There is no evidence that the Cruzes got a break on their loans.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Cruz’s presidential campaign, Catherine Frazier, acknowledged that the loan from Goldman Sachs, drawn against the value of the Cruzes’ brokerage account, was a source of money for the Senate race. Ms. Frazier added that Mr. Cruz also sold stocks and liquidated savings, but she did not address whether the Citibank loan was used.

The failure to report the Goldman Sachs loan, for as much as $500,000, was “inadvertent,” she said, adding that the campaign would file corrected reports as necessary. Ms. Frazier said there had been no attempt to hide anything.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/us/politics/ted-cruz-wall-street-loan-senate-bid-2012.html?emc=edit_th_20160114&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=18674485

[Dustlawyer]

1. Bull Shit!!!

How do you "inadvertently" forget about $750,000? They are not the Koch Bros.! It looks like Terrible Ted did a Clarence Thomas, and like Thomas, there will be no repercussions!

[CajunBlazer]

2. It certainly should have been reported, but such loans are not uncommon

The need for such a loan normally occurs because money in an investment account is tied up in stocks. It may not be a good time to sell the stock - stock prices may be down or, conversely, stock prices may have risen to the point that huge capital gains taxes might be due if they are sold.

There is money in the account, its your money, but it is simply tied up. Thus the loan is negotiated with the bank or other holding company where the stock held using the stock as collateral.

So the bottom line is that Cruz was simply using his own money he had in the account without having to sell the stock.

I have no idea about the nature of the bank loan, but in both cases he was financing his own campaign. Other than not reporting the transactions, that is certainly not the greatest sin a politician can commit.

Look, I hate what Ted Cruz stands for, and I hate his tactics, and there are plenty of reasons why he should be reviled by the American public, but this really not a big deal. The whole matter might be a simple misunderstanding that a politician has to declare all of the sources of campaign money, even if he is using his own money.