Ted Cruz's undisclosed $1M loan from Goldman Sachs

Rate this post

Heidi and Ted Cruz, March 23, 2015, Lynchburg, VA. (Photo Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images)

Heidi and Ted Cruz, March 23, 2015, Lynchburg, VA. (Photo Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images)


Senator Ted Cruz’s wife, Heidi, is head of the Southwest Region in the Investment Management Division of the Wall Street investment bank Goldman Sachs, on a temporary “leave” because of Ted’s presidential campaign.

Heidi Cruz is also a former investment banker for J.P. Morgan and a “historical member” of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), for which she served as a member of the CFR-sponsored Independent Task Force on the Future of North America, which a North American Union. (See “Is Ted Cruz an advocate of a North American Union?“)

Although Heidi Cruz presently is on leave, she was fully working for Goldman Sachs in 2012 when Ted obtained a low-interest $1 million loan from her employer for his senatorial campaign. To top it off, Ted Cruz did not disclose the loan as he is required by law.
The New York Times reports on Jan. 13, 2016, that campaign finance reports show that in the critical weeks before the May 2012 GOP primary, Ted Cruz 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 Cruz described it in an interview.
But a review of personal financial disclosures that Cruz filed later with the Senate does not show 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 a low-interest loan from Goldman Sachs, as well as another one from Citibank. The loans totaled $750,000 and eventually increased to $1 million before being paid down later that year. Both loans had floating interest rates around 3%, generally in line with rates available to wealthy borrowers at that time.

Neither loan appears in reports filed by Cruz’s senate campaign committee with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

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.

A spokeswoman for 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, but insisted that the failure to report the loan was “inadvertent” and that there had been no attempt to hide anything. Frazier did not address whether the Citibank loan was used also for Cruz’s Senate race.

Former election commission lawyer who specializes in campaign finance law Kenneth Gross, however, disagrees.

Gross said that listing a bank loan in an annual Senate ethics report — which deals only with personal finances — would not satisfy the requirement that it be promptly disclosed to election officials during a campaign: “They’re two different reporting regimes. The law says if you get a loan for the purpose of funding a campaign, you have to show the original source of the loan, the terms of the loan and you even have to provide a copy of the loan document to the Federal Election Commission.”

Specifically, in failing to report the two bank loans to the FEC, Cruz violated:

  • 52 USC 30104 (b)(2) (6), which requires the committee of a federal candidate to disclose on a report filed “loans made by or guaranteed by the candidate”; and
  • 52 USC 30104(b)(4)(d), which requires the reporting of “repayment of loans made by or guaranteed by the candidate”.

ZeroHedge points out that someone will have to file an official complaint against Cruz, and the FEC could impose fines. But if evidence emerges that his failure to disclose the loans was ‘knowing and willful,’ he could be criminally prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice, according to campaign finance experts.
Aside from Ted Cruz’s dishonesty in not reporting the loans to the FEC, there is also the matter of his hypocrisy.

In 2012 when he ran for the Senate as a darling of the Tea Party, and in his current presidential campaign, Ted Cruz presents himself as a populist for the “little man,” against Wall Street bailouts and the influence of big banks in Washington. Recently, when asked about the political clout of Goldman Sachs in particular, he replied:

“Like many other players on Wall Street and big business, they seek out and get special favors from government.”

As financial analyst Martin Armstrong puts it:

The dishonesty here is that Cruz has pretended to stand against the bankers…. I am sorry. But Cruz is bought and paid for and would be in the pocket of the New York Banks no different than Hillary, Bush, or the rest of them who take money from this crowd. You do not forget to report a loan from Goldman Sachs when your wife is a managing director. Come on. How stupid do we have to be to entertain this excuse?

See also:

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

0 responses to “Ted Cruz's undisclosed $1M loan from Goldman Sachs

  1. Michael Buccasio

    I like him. I believe he is going too be our next President…

     
  2. Geldman Sacks –as I prefer to call it– has been in the forefront of mega-banks buying politicos for decades now. To show Michael Buccasio how astute they are, they were the biggest buyer of the Obamination. The money was funnelled through his Finance Chair, Penny Pritzker, whose father went right from Geldman Sacks to becoming a billionaire hotel owner and real estate developer in Chicago. The elites like to keep the money in the family, dontcha know, even if it takes borderline incest marriages.

     
  3. Facts we need to know. If information is withheld, the American public should not be greatly disparaged for bad decisions, that should go to those providing falsehoods as they withhold essential truth.

     
  4. I have had this nagging feeling for months that Ted Cruz is a wolf in sheeps clothing. That he is not what he says he is or seems to be. Yes he held a fullibuster in Congress. I admired him for doing that. His wife working for Goldman Sachs and being a member of the CFR bothers me no end. Of course now they say that is no big deal and she is no longer associated with those two organizations. This article states that she is on leave from Goldman Sachs. It is also my understanding that while she was an active member of the CFR, she helped write the ‘white paper’ for what became the TPP agreement. I went to the CFR website and found no mention of Heidi Cruz. None, nada, nothing. Maybe I did not look in the right place.
    I realize there is no perfect candidate. I would love to give Cruz the benefit of the doubt, if only because a very close friend of mine thinks Cruz is the answer to America’s problems. As for me, I am keeping my options open and am waiting to see who the final presidential candidates are. I am not supporting anyone in particular at this point. I do know whom I will NOT vote for.
    I guess the question is, if Cruz is the GOP candidate, should I look the other way and vote for him? I am sure there will be some stuff come out on Trump as well. So I ask the same question about Trump. Or should I do what I have done in the past and vote independent, thus assuring the Democrat candidate will win, or at least that is what they say. May the Lord guide us in these decisions!

     
    • Ma in Mo, you are so sweet! Wish I could have a cup of coffee with you. I think in the end all these candidates are fallen people and God is in control of all the “Pharaohs” and He will bring about His will for humanity. We can do our homework as best we can and vote accordingly and pray for Gods will to be done.

       
    • Dear MA in MO, the answer to your concerns is very simple: do as our Lord Jeshua said: Let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’ and your ‘No’ be ‘No’! Above all, have no doubts or second thoughts beyond being informed by the Spirit. Do you see Him saying ‘Maybe’? I didn’t.
      This is also a supremely empowering Zen Buddhist attitude as well, and serves to determine nearly all of our informed choices.
      After that, what I hear you saying is that you have at least one doubt –if not more– about this Cruz character, as if he were the lesser of two evils. NEVER forget that the lesser of two or more evils is STILL evil!
      Now go, and vote no more in doubt!

       
  5. Kevin J Lankford

    None of that holds a candle to the propaganda bomb he dropped on the debate. Declaring with a strait face and mock intellect that his mother was a natural born american, and from the beginning of this nation that is all that is necessary to be a “Natural Born” U.S. citizen. Even mocking the true definition, insinuating Trump would not qualify because his mother was not born in the United States, so was a naturalized citizen, rather than “Natural Born”.
    What grated me all the more than his phony scholarly, legal, expertise, was how not one soul spoke up to correct his lies that one U.S. parent was all that is required to be eligible for the office of president, as if it was intentionally staged for the benefit of the uncomprehending masses benefit and edification.
    Only we are just not all so stupid, and unaware that the only practical and readily proven source of the term “Natural Born Citizen”, and its specific, unambiguous definition is the treatise of Emmerich de Vattel’s ” The Law of Nations”. A fact that should have put their “Birther” insults to rest long ago.
    Only the ignorant, traitorous liars, or coward, refer to obama as president. Only the ignorant, traitorous liars, or cowards, claim cruz, rubio, or jindal, are “Natural Born” U.S. citizens.

     
    • Just because Cruz’s mother was born an American citizen does not automatically make Cruz a citizen. Certain guidelines for citizenship must be followed for Americans born abroad. After his birth, his parents should have filed a CRBA ( Consular Report of Birth Abroad) with a US Embassy or Consulate along with his birth certificate and other documents. If the Embassy or Consulate determined that he was a citizen, a form FS-240 would be filed in his name. If his parents failed to do that, Cruz would have to obtain a US Certificate of Citizenship, a naturalization process in which he would renounce all foreign governments and pledge allegiance to the USA. Unless Cruz can produce an FS-240 or a US Certificate of Citizenship, then technically, he is not a citizen of the USA.

       
      • Cruz was a dual Canadian-US citizen until only a year ago, when a Texas newspaper outed him, which led to his renunciation of his Canadian citizenship. He was a dual citizen when he successfully ran for the Senate in 2012.

         
        • Kevin J Lankford

          cruz still harbors dual citizenship through parents of differing citizenship, unless certain rumors are true, that his parents became naturalized canadian citizens. All his renouncing canadian citizenship could accomplish is to make him unwelcome in canada.
          Still, “Natural born” citizenship is a circumstance of birth that can not be acquired through any statute of man.

           
    • Very well put in all points. Keep writing here, you’re needed!

       
    • For the record, here is a BRIEF Summary of current Canada Immigration laws & rules, as best I can ascertain [different lawyers give different interpretations, of course].
      1. One may hold two –or more!– valid citizenship papers and passports, BUT,
      2. when push comes to shove, one MUST declare which of those s/he wishes to be addressed in/or considered in at the moment. THIS IS INVIOLATE: one cannot claim equal citizenship in two nations simultaneously.
      3. People who wish to claim as Canadians first & foremost MUST have a permanent residence in Canada for six months and a day MINIMUM, prior to claiming it. To validate this, they’re required to make a border crossing of 24 hours absence or more, and obtain valid Date Stamps for the time period thay are claiming.
      NOTE: ’24 hours’ MUST be a continuous period of stationary residence in one or the other country, w/o moving across the border for whatever reason, even if your mum suddenly died. You’d get back in and have to start the clock all over.
      I hope this helps. As usual, it’s not as simple or easy as others lead us to believe.

       
  6. You are right regarding reference to Vattel and his “Law of Nations” and your explaining the cause of various irrelevant distractions, false and otherwise. Open the door for anyone from anywhere, if approved by the global puppet masters, to become President of the United States. You are exposing one of many tactics for “creeping globalism” as it races with creeping sharia towards a common objective: submission of mankind.

     
  7. I prefer a POTUS to be born AND raised on american soil. neither obama nor cruz were born or raised here since infancy (even though obama claims he was born in hawaii) and just like obama, cruz was born to an american mother and foreign father on foreign soil. I think cruz provides good lip service, but I feel he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing deeply embedded with the banks. Both, cruz and obama, were first term senators when they launched their bids, were harvard graduates, law professors and changed their names (barry became “barack” and rafael became “ted”). And obama has loyalties to islam while cruz has loyalties to israel. And it’s the banks behind this big push for social change.
    Having a banker wife who was also a member of CFR and a member of the independent task force for the north american union makes me wonder who would really be the one running the show should cruz become POTUS. Reminds me of hillery pushing her agendas while bill was in orifice (I mean office).
    A true president’s loyalty should be God first, then his country. I know no candidate will step forward putting Jesus first, so at least put the country first. Americans should scrutinize and criticize anyone who wants to be POTUS. We shouldn’t use the media’s popularity contest as a gauge for who will be POTUS.
    I believe we should have strong criteria for becoming POTUS; this is the person who would not only lead the country, but the world as well. And simply saying ‘well, his mother was born here’ shouldn’t suffice. obama was elected with all of his issues and that created a hole in the presidency because he was elected POTUS with only one parent being an american citizen and claimed to be born on the soil. Now, we have cruz, who will carry with him the same “birther” baggage his father put on obama.
    Beginning with obama, and now cruz, POTUS eligibility requirements have been watered down. We questioned where obama was born and he became POTUS and now we know where cruz was born; but we question if it’s constitutional to be born outside the country with one american parent and still be considered a “natural born citizen”. Which was ultimately what obama was being accused of by birthers. The POTUS requirements hole is widening. It seems to me that, in regards to the eligibility question, obama has set the stage for cruz. If cruz is elected, then all you need to be POTUS (in terms of natural born citizen) is to have a parent who is an american citizen…pretty flimsy in my opinion. With the millions of americans born on this soil who are eligible to run for POTUS, why pick someone with a mirror image background of obama?
    The fact that Cruz (and his banker wife) withheld information from the FEC regarding his loans with banks, and by doing so could possibly lead to criminal prosecution, makes me wonder what else has he not divulged?
    But, then again, people were warned about obama before he was elected and folks wouldn’t listen; they were enthralled with a candidate whom they believed would “save” them. I don’t believe this case will be any different.

     
    • MomOfIV, this short analysis & statement from you is simply superb; I hope everyone reads it twice, which it deserves. You covered all the salient points and give the pros & cons, so really there’s very little –if anything– to add. I, for one, will not even try to do so, because your statements are strong, clear, and ring of the truth.
      Seriously, you should give some thought to running for state rep, as you’d be far ahead of anyone the so-called opposition will drag out, AND you are Christ-centered, so my money’s on you!
      Of course running’s always been and will likely always be a dirty business; my contender was Tom Mulcair, a SOLID RC w/very strong family and community ties, clearly the best candidate by sentiment AND reason. BUT Canada is largely Protestant, so Québécois are still prejudiced against, as JFK was. Tom’s initial lead disappeared in the voting booths and we got the second-best, Justlib [sic] Trudeau, who will never measure up to Tom’s stature, IMO. Second-best is never ‘best’ in any way.

       
  8. I am very disappointed to hear this about Ted Cruz. I knew his wife was affiliated with Goldman Sachs, and it is interesting to know she was also a member of the CFR (as is former NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly). I am at a loss as to how to say this was a simple mistake or an oversight, and I’m surprised. Ted Cruz has said a number of things I agree wtih. (Although I do not believe he is a natural born citizen).
    Sigh.

     
  9. Politics being what it is, it is always good to see where the candidates get their money. If they get it from Wall Street and the big bankers, there is a chance that they will be backing their interests instead of our interests.

     
    • evh, when you wrote ‘…it is always good to see where the candidates get their money. If they get it from Wall Street and the big bankers, there is a chance that they will be backing their interests,” I take it you meant that would be a 100% -if not greater!- chance. Just asking, dontcha know, as so far that has been a perfect, unbroken track record since Rome, maybe even before.

       
  10. As more information comes out, it’s now obvious to me that there is NOBODY who would qualify to be President. So far, EVERY DAMNED CANDIDATE either HAS something already brought to our attention that is sub-par or WILL have, because nobody is PERFECT. Therefore, maybe we should ALL vote for whoever our favorite write-in might be. Or maybe we could all call for a conversion to a Board of Directors of the USA. We can now concede that the United States of America will soon become the United Socialist States of America, because WE couldn’t find ANYONE who met our HIGH standards as a Leader.

     
    • I don’t think expecting a presidential candidate to abide by the law and to not be blatantly hypocritical — denouncing big banks while receiving a sweetheart loan from the biggest bank of all — is “high standards”. Such expectation is MINIMUM standards.

       
      • I agree-so why is there NOBODY running who can pass that simple test? EVERY single Candidate, of BOTH Parties, can be summarily dismissed for one thing or another, because they’re ALL human-well, MAYBE not Hillary…What do we do? Stand on Principle and not elect ANY of ’em? Choose the one with the least criminal past? Choose the one whose criminal behavior has harmed the fewest people? Is it worth even HAVING an election? Would it be better to let the Dictator-in Chief declare Martial Law, cancel the election and let the endless process of rubbing out each successive Dictator until one takes power that the people judge fit to lead the Country?
        Maybe we just need to screen Candidates much, much closer-find out every little detail of their lives and bounce ’em out if there’s anything that isn’t 100% kosher. Run Medical tests to be sure they don’t have a tendency towards alcoholism, drug addiction or mental problems, make sure there’s no history of problems of heart, lungs, eyesight, hearing or digestion, run Mental health tests to make sure they’re going to be logical, even tempered, resistant to the enticements of graft and bribery, and make them sign a Statement that if they fail to abide by the letter of the US Constitution 100% they WILL be removed from office AND prosecuted for violation of a Contract. That’s gonna make for a pretty small field of Candidates. I can only choose the Candidate I think can represent us the best, and HOPE he gets elected. I’m STILL gonna vote for Trump, in SPITE of the Scottish woman’s admonishment that, “If he becomes your President, he’ll destroy the United States to a degree you can’t even see in your worst nightmares.” I figure my choice won’t matter. If he does well for the US, I’ll live a better life than I have recently, if he trashes the Country worse than Obama has done, I’ll suffer more, but either way I”ll probably not have to worry for long-I’ll hope for the best but expect the worst and plan accordingly.

         
        • You make sense. Pray for peace but…. prepare for war.

           
        • “they’re ALL human-well, MAYBE not Hillary…” Golly but that’s good, wish I’d written it! She isn’t, by the way, as my recently deceased friend Dr Tom OBrien –their long-time DEEP money advisor– told me she was more soulless and evil than Bubba ever was or can be, and she’s gotten worse in the 25+ yrs since then, if you can imagine that!

           
          • Ahab and Jezebel. Bill is motivated by ego, self-satisfaction, and Hillary is a strong ideologue.

             
            • Hmm, excellent references and comparisons, IMO.
              Mind you, poor old Jezebel really didn’t have a bad track record, just married the wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time, rather like the current US Pres electoral process! Nor did she have anyone to speak up for her good qualities, so we’ll never know what they were. Again, rather like the current batch of ‘brewed in Hades’ candidates.

               
      • I agree with you Dr. Eowyn. However, I have a more unkind objection to Ted Cruz. I find him to be “mousey” and not genuine.

         
    • Kevin J Lankford

      I feel quite sure if no body voted for any body, the electronic voting machines and media score boards will still be racking up absurd numbers for their liberal criminal pet.

       
      • LOL-so true. I KNOW Reid would remain, he’s more a survivor than the cockroach. and that’s no accident…

         
      • Ain’t that just the God-awful truth! The Bushes contracted w/Diebold [a good German family business] to create these monstrosities, now we’re stuck w’em.
        I was a paid monitor for the 2000 election in California, and at my modest voting station in San Leandro I can tell you it went off slick as snot. On the next day people were amazed at the skewed outcome. I wasn’t, because it was what the program created in spite of voter choices. We don’t need no stinking democracy; we got the machine!

         
    • I have a question. First let me say I am not trying to diss anyone or trip anyone up, I just want to know. I have heard the term ‘Zionist’ for many years and would really like to know what its true meaning is? I remember some old Camp Meeting songs that refer to marching to Zion so is that good or bad? I read a definition one time but it alludes me as to where I read it and thus cannot find the source. I am just asking. This time I will make a copy.

       
      • I know Zion plays a huge part in the lives of the Mormons…the ZION BANK, etc.

         
      • Zionist are people of Jewry that believe in Jews, either politically or religiously having their own home land such as Israel.
        Recently artifacts were found deep under ground in Israel proving the land was owned by the Hebrews thousands of years ago.
        I see people tossing out the term all over without knowing what it means.

         
      • I think it is a derogatory statement. It is anti-semetic. It is the liberal view of the Jews not having a right to the land (they believe the Palestinians have the right), which is against biblical history and prophesy. God loves the nation of Israel and has restored them to the point of even restoring a language that could have been lost but miraculously is restored. History shows the satanic hatred of God’s chosen people…we as Christians have been “Grafted into the olive tree”. We are the wild branches…He always wanted all humanity to come to Him but He used the jews to show us how disobedient they were and also all people groups. It is obviously the most prized real estate on the globe. Watch Israel and you see the prophesy of the bible unfolding….The Lord says,
        https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+12:3&version=NLT

         
    • I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you! The Lord love Israel!

       
  11. Goldman Sachs has been buying influence for a long time. This is the exact thing that makes me distrust Ted Cruz.

     
  12. Pingback: Shadows of Ted Cruz | Icliks Incoming

  13. Pingback: VIDEO NH Poll: Trump +16, Kasich in 2nd, Jeb Surging – Est Rubio FAIL -Biggest WS whores among 2016 prez candidates are… | Reclaim Our Republic

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *