ADVERTISEMENT

Ted Cruz Didn't

BlueRaiderFan

Hall of Famer
Oct 4, 2003
5,590
69
48

Republicans have no moral fiber

Disclose Loan From Goldman Sachs for His First Senate Campaign


As Ted Cruz tells it, the story of how he financed his upstart campaign for the United States Senate four years ago is an endearing example of loyalty and shared sacrifice between a married couple.

“Sweetheart, I’d like us to liquidate our entire net worth, liquid net worth, and put it into the campaign,” he says he told his wife, Heidi, who readily agreed.

But the couple’s decision to pump more than $1 million into Mr. Cruz’s successful Tea Party-darling Senate bid in Texas was made easier by a large loan from Goldman Sachs, where Mrs. Cruz works. That loan was not disclosed in campaign finance reports.

Those reports show that in the critical weeks before the May 2012 Republican primary, Mr. Cruz — currently a leading contender for his party’s presidential nomination — put “personal funds” totaling $960,000 into his Senate campaign. Two months later, shortly before a scheduled runoff election, he added more, bringing the total to $1.2 million — “which is all we had saved,” as Mr. Cruz described it in an interview with The New York Times several years ago.

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.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/u...-bid-2012.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

See Link
 
goldman sachs owns D.C

7522077788_575644542f_z.jpg
 
goldman sachs owns D.C

7522077788_575644542f_z.jpg


Bullshit...Prove it. Even if it were true, which I doubt, Bush et al have done things much worse, like sending our men and women off to war so that they could make a ton off of Halliburton.
 
bush is no different than obammer. millionaire politicians lining their pockets with wallstreet money. yet you are stupid enough to think that those millionaires are going to raise taxes on themselves because they care about you.
 
This information has been public for many years. This is not new. He told the Senate, he didn't disclose them in the Campaign Finance process....no one knows why. You don't understand the history of the election in TX, and it is true he was being outspent 10-1. Maybe he was embarrassed. He should have fully disclosed it.

Maybe it was an over site - you claim it was sinister. There is no evidence that he got a "special" deal on the loans. If he did so much wrong, why wasn't he fined?
 
A couple of points...You realize he had to use his own assets as collateral...not a liquidation, but they were at risk if he didn't pay the loan back

Mr. Cruz first disclosed the loans on his congressional financial disclosure forms in July 2012, a few months before the election. Those filings show that he took out a “margin loan” of between $100,001 and $250,000 from Goldman Sachs earlier in 2012. Mr. Cruz had a brokerage account with Goldman Sachs and he told reporters Wednesday that he took out a margin loan from that account.

Meanwhile, get back to your "hit" piece to create outrage.
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT