Ted Cruz Refuses To Give FEC Details of Campaign Loans From Goldman Sachs

[AZJoe]

Ted Cruz Refuses To Give FEC Details of Campaign Loans From Goldman Sach

http://theconservativetreehouse.com...details-of-campaign-loans-from-goldman-sachs/

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. ... 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. ...

By going through the “enforcement division” (takes over a year) they can delay any damaging information from discovery until after the 2016 Presidential Election. ... the controversy surrounding Candidate Ted Cruz and his failure to reveal $1.3 million in campaign “loans” from Goldman Sachs and Citibank .. a failure of Ted and Heidi Cruz to list Wall Street “loans” on the required Federal Election Commission financial reports.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/03/26/lyin-ted-cruz-campaign-refuses-to-give-fec-details-of-campaign-loans-from-goldman-sachs/

 

[kpitcher]

Hillary with her email scandal, Cruz with the SEC, Trump with his Trump University... so much baggage with these people and that's not even talking about their actual ideologies!

 

[Jan2017]

Maybe the state of Texas should hold a special election in November for their soon to be "unseated" junior Senator

 

[AngryCanadian]

Its almost as if this a karma for not the GOP not wanting Paul's in.

 

[jbauer]

Imagine that. Cruz wants to wash dirt under the table.

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

That's a huge chunk of influence out not being disclosed, especially when your wife has worked for goldman sachs - the heart of the banking scandal that has never been resolved.

Add 500k that just pops out of Cruz's pac and into Carly's, and it doesn't look right from a lot of angles.

John Edwards eventually went to trial, not for cheating, but for using campaign finances to pay off his mistress.

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

The thinking behind this is pretty clearcut — a candidate who gets donations from a special interest will work for that special interest and not the American people. Sanders continues to hammer Clinton on this issue, not only for the $675,000 she received in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs (a hot $200,000 an hour) but also because the firm has been one of the top campaign donors of her political career. When Clinton can make four times as much in an hour as an average American household makes in a year, it doesn’t matter how many town halls or state fairs she attends — she simply cannot relate to the struggle of everyday Americans. Furthermore, Clinton still hasn’t come up with a good response to the Goldman Sachs question yet — so far she’s invoked 9/11, said the speeches were “a good conversation” and even laughed off the idea of releasing the transcripts of her speeches, much like she first laughed off her email scandal. The fact that she can’t offer any good reasoning for her Goldman Sachs ties only makes her increasingly untrustworthy in the eyes of middle class voters and the Sanders campaign knows it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/travis-irvine/make-no-mistake-clinton-a_b_9103096.html

And that is just a flat out payoff.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Cruz borrowed funds against the some $5 million he and his wife had in various accounts with the two banks. He then took that secured personal loan and loaned that money to his campaign. The money was eventually repaid. The loan was legal but the questions is was it properly reported as required.

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Cruz borrowed funds against the some $5 million he and his wife had in various accounts with the two banks. He then took that secured personal loan and loaned that money to his campaign. The money was eventually repaid. The loan was legal but the questions is was it properly reported as required.

Which is illegal.