Be Well
may all be well
http://theconservativetreehouse.com...ust-provide-information-on-2012-senate-loans/
Posted on February 3, 2016 by sundance
By now most people are aware of the controversy surrounding Candidate Ted Cruz and his failure to reveal $1.3 million in campaign “loans” from Goldman Sachs and Citibank during his 2012 campaign for the senate. At the heart of the issue is a failure of Ted and Heidi Cruz to list Wall Street “loans” on the required Federal Election Commission financial reports.
Together with the campaign officials the Cruz’s say the non-reporting was an accidental oversight. However, a watch dog group has now filed a complaint with the FEC which is step one to beginning an FEC investigation.
Today the FEC requested information from the Cruz campaign, with a response due by March 8th:
Image# 201602020300010262
RQ-2
FEDERALELECTIONCOMMISSION
WASHINGTON,D.C.20463
February 2, 2016
BRADLEY SCOTT KNIPPA, TREASURER TED CRUZ FOR SENATE815 A BRAZOS PMB 550AUSTIN, TX 78701 IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: C00492785 REFERENCE: JULY QUARTERLY REPORT (05/10/2012 - 06/30/2012)
Dear Treasurer:
Response Due Date03/08/2016
This letter is prompted by the Commission's preliminary review of the report referenced above. This notice requests information essential to full public disclosure of your federal election campaign finances.
An adequate response must be received at the Senate Public Records Office by the response date noted above. Failure to adequately respond by the response date noted above could result in an audit or enforcement action
. Additional information is needed for the following
1
item(s):
-
When a committee reports receiving a loan from the candidate, it is necessary to clarify whether or not the candidate used personal funds or borrowed the money from a lending institution or some other source. The Commissions notes your letter, dated 1/14/2016, indicating that one or more candidate loans initially disclosed as derived from "personal funds" should have been reported as derived from bank loans. Please amend your report to indicate the source of each loan, whether the loan is derived from the candidate's personal funds or if he/she obtained the loan from a bank loan, brokerage account, credit card, home equity line of credit, or other line of credit. If a candidate loan was obtained from a lending institution, you must also file a Schedule C-1 with the Commission, providing the name of the lending institution and the complete terms of the loan between the candidate and the lending institution. Schedule C-1 can be downloaded from the FEC website at http://www.fec.gov, or requested through the FEC Faxline at (202) 501-3413. Electronic filers must submit the Schedule C-1 electronically. If the loan(s) was from personal funds, please acknowledge that fact in an amendment to this report. It is important to note that "personal funds" is strictly defined by Commission Regulations. (11 CFR §100.33)
Image# 201602020300010263
TED CRUZ FOR SENATEPage 2 of 2
Please note, you will not receive an additional notice from the Commission on this matter.
Adequate responses must be received by the Commission on or before the due date noted above to be taken into consideration in determining whether audit action will be initiated. Failure to comply with the provisions of the Act may also result in an enforcement action against the committee. Any response submitted by your committee will be placed on the public record and will be considered by the Commission prior to taking enforcement action.
Requests for extensions of time in which to respond will not be considered
.A written response or an amendment to your original report(s) correcting the above problems should be filed with the Senate Public Records Office. Please contact the Senate Public Records Office at (202) 224-0322 for instructions on how and where to file an amendment. If you should have any questions regarding this matter or wish to verify the adequacy of your response, please contact me on our toll-free number (800) 424-9530 (at the prompt press 5 to reach the Reports Analysis Division) or my local number (202) 694-1166.Sincerely,Bradley MathesonSr. Campaign Finance & Reviewing AnalystReports Analysis Division
418
Sincerely,
Bradley Matheson
Sr. Campaign Finance & Reviewing Analysis
The full complaint (pdf) is outlined below. However, the larger question behind the complaint would be the motive for Ted and Heidi Cruz to hide the source of their campaign funds. The activity the complainant is presenting to have the FEC investigate, if proven accurate, is factually illegal.
The “accidental omission” is not necessarily the problem. The irreconcilable consequences from an accurate filing are the larger issue.
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.
[Document too difficult to copy, view at link above]
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.
That’s the BIGGER question in this example.
• Was this second scenario a method for Wall Street, via Goldman Sachs, to put the well-educated husband of one of their “employees” into office, simply to insure that as a U.S. Senator he was friendly to their interests?
• Would Wall Street industrial bankers, who finance global corporations, be able to insure this type of candidate would, as an example, advocate for something like Trans-Pacific Trade?
• Would Wall Street institutional bankers, who benefit from low interest loans via U.S. Treasury, be able to influence such a candidate to avoid auditing the federal reserve?
• Would Wall Street institutional banking agents who benefit from low interest federal borrowing, and higher interest investment loaning, be able to influence policy regarding North American economic development?
• Would, as an example, a billionaire hedge-fund manager (Robert Mercer), who is in a legal fight with the IRS to the tune of $10 BILLION taxes owed, be willing to invest several million, perhaps tens of millions, into a presidential campaign in an effort to win the White House and influence a U.S. Tax Policy that would tilt the IRS scales in his favor – and consequently save him billions?
Those become the bigger questions to consider when asking yourself why would such a brilliant legal expert, a very smart lawyer like Ted Cruz, just inadvertently omit such a filing to the FEC.
Wouldn’t an equally sharp spouse like Heidi S. Cruz, who was -according to Ted- a key decision maker in the loans, and who is also an energy investment banker with Goldman Sachs, also identify the concern?
We’ve begun taking a much more skeptical look at Senator Ted Cruz’s financial intents and the people who hold influence upon him….
The Robert Mercer angle alone is showing some VERY ALARMING “probabilities”.
Robert Mercer spends $100 million to get Ted Cruz the White House; Ted Cruz then turns around and leverages a better IRS result for Robert Mercer.
One of Cruz’s primary campaign points is the elimination of the IRS and the imposition of a flat tax. If successful, that would save Mercer $6 to $10 billion.
That’s BILLION, with a “B”.
In addition the Cruz campaign head Rick Tyler made some very bold-faced misrepresentations earlier tonight about K-Street Lobbyists and Donors not having influence over Ted Cruz’s legislative record.
The truth begs to differ significantly (as noted above).
There are three KtP Super-Pacs and they are all spending significant amounts of money. See HERE and See HERE and See HERE [Notice the Cambridge Analytica is Robert Mercer.]
[Lots of embedded links at the site. ]
Posted on February 3, 2016 by sundance
By now most people are aware of the controversy surrounding Candidate Ted Cruz and his failure to reveal $1.3 million in campaign “loans” from Goldman Sachs and Citibank during his 2012 campaign for the senate. At the heart of the issue is a failure of Ted and Heidi Cruz to list Wall Street “loans” on the required Federal Election Commission financial reports.
Together with the campaign officials the Cruz’s say the non-reporting was an accidental oversight. However, a watch dog group has now filed a complaint with the FEC which is step one to beginning an FEC investigation.
Image# 201602020300010262
RQ-2
FEDERALELECTIONCOMMISSION
WASHINGTON,D.C.20463
February 2, 2016
BRADLEY SCOTT KNIPPA, TREASURER TED CRUZ FOR SENATE815 A BRAZOS PMB 550AUSTIN, TX 78701 IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: C00492785 REFERENCE: JULY QUARTERLY REPORT (05/10/2012 - 06/30/2012)
Dear Treasurer:
Response Due Date03/08/2016
This letter is prompted by the Commission's preliminary review of the report referenced above. This notice requests information essential to full public disclosure of your federal election campaign finances.
An adequate response must be received at the Senate Public Records Office by the response date noted above. Failure to adequately respond by the response date noted above could result in an audit or enforcement action
. Additional information is needed for the following
1
item(s):
-
When a committee reports receiving a loan from the candidate, it is necessary to clarify whether or not the candidate used personal funds or borrowed the money from a lending institution or some other source. The Commissions notes your letter, dated 1/14/2016, indicating that one or more candidate loans initially disclosed as derived from "personal funds" should have been reported as derived from bank loans. Please amend your report to indicate the source of each loan, whether the loan is derived from the candidate's personal funds or if he/she obtained the loan from a bank loan, brokerage account, credit card, home equity line of credit, or other line of credit. If a candidate loan was obtained from a lending institution, you must also file a Schedule C-1 with the Commission, providing the name of the lending institution and the complete terms of the loan between the candidate and the lending institution. Schedule C-1 can be downloaded from the FEC website at http://www.fec.gov, or requested through the FEC Faxline at (202) 501-3413. Electronic filers must submit the Schedule C-1 electronically. If the loan(s) was from personal funds, please acknowledge that fact in an amendment to this report. It is important to note that "personal funds" is strictly defined by Commission Regulations. (11 CFR §100.33)
Image# 201602020300010263
TED CRUZ FOR SENATEPage 2 of 2
Please note, you will not receive an additional notice from the Commission on this matter.
Adequate responses must be received by the Commission on or before the due date noted above to be taken into consideration in determining whether audit action will be initiated. Failure to comply with the provisions of the Act may also result in an enforcement action against the committee. Any response submitted by your committee will be placed on the public record and will be considered by the Commission prior to taking enforcement action.
Requests for extensions of time in which to respond will not be considered
.A written response or an amendment to your original report(s) correcting the above problems should be filed with the Senate Public Records Office. Please contact the Senate Public Records Office at (202) 224-0322 for instructions on how and where to file an amendment. If you should have any questions regarding this matter or wish to verify the adequacy of your response, please contact me on our toll-free number (800) 424-9530 (at the prompt press 5 to reach the Reports Analysis Division) or my local number (202) 694-1166.Sincerely,Bradley MathesonSr. Campaign Finance & Reviewing AnalystReports Analysis Division
418
Sincerely,
Bradley Matheson
Sr. Campaign Finance & Reviewing Analysis
The full complaint (pdf) is outlined below. However, the larger question behind the complaint would be the motive for Ted and Heidi Cruz to hide the source of their campaign funds. The activity the complainant is presenting to have the FEC investigate, if proven accurate, is factually illegal.
The “accidental omission” is not necessarily the problem. The irreconcilable consequences from an accurate filing are the larger issue.
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.
[Document too difficult to copy, view at link above]
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.
That’s the BIGGER question in this example.
• Was this second scenario a method for Wall Street, via Goldman Sachs, to put the well-educated husband of one of their “employees” into office, simply to insure that as a U.S. Senator he was friendly to their interests?
• Would Wall Street industrial bankers, who finance global corporations, be able to insure this type of candidate would, as an example, advocate for something like Trans-Pacific Trade?
• Would Wall Street institutional bankers, who benefit from low interest loans via U.S. Treasury, be able to influence such a candidate to avoid auditing the federal reserve?
• Would Wall Street institutional banking agents who benefit from low interest federal borrowing, and higher interest investment loaning, be able to influence policy regarding North American economic development?
• Would, as an example, a billionaire hedge-fund manager (Robert Mercer), who is in a legal fight with the IRS to the tune of $10 BILLION taxes owed, be willing to invest several million, perhaps tens of millions, into a presidential campaign in an effort to win the White House and influence a U.S. Tax Policy that would tilt the IRS scales in his favor – and consequently save him billions?
Those become the bigger questions to consider when asking yourself why would such a brilliant legal expert, a very smart lawyer like Ted Cruz, just inadvertently omit such a filing to the FEC.
Wouldn’t an equally sharp spouse like Heidi S. Cruz, who was -according to Ted- a key decision maker in the loans, and who is also an energy investment banker with Goldman Sachs, also identify the concern?
We’ve begun taking a much more skeptical look at Senator Ted Cruz’s financial intents and the people who hold influence upon him….
The Robert Mercer angle alone is showing some VERY ALARMING “probabilities”.
….The fact that Mercer owes the IRS between $6 and $10 billion, and is in a legal dispute over payment,… in connection with Mercer setting up the Keep the Promise (KtP) Super-PAC before turning it over to David Barton (Glenn Beck affiliate),…. and then Mercer giving Carly Fiorina the start up money from KtP to begin Carly for America,… and then Mercer purchasing the Data Analytics for Ted Cruz,….. and then Mercer buying influential interest in the Breitbart website to the benefit of Cruz….. All gives the brutally obvious motive of a quid-pro-quo.
Robert Mercer spends $100 million to get Ted Cruz the White House; Ted Cruz then turns around and leverages a better IRS result for Robert Mercer.
One of Cruz’s primary campaign points is the elimination of the IRS and the imposition of a flat tax. If successful, that would save Mercer $6 to $10 billion.
That’s BILLION, with a “B”.
In addition the Cruz campaign head Rick Tyler made some very bold-faced misrepresentations earlier tonight about K-Street Lobbyists and Donors not having influence over Ted Cruz’s legislative record.
The truth begs to differ significantly (as noted above).
There are three KtP Super-Pacs and they are all spending significant amounts of money. See HERE and See HERE and See HERE [Notice the Cambridge Analytica is Robert Mercer.]
[Lots of embedded links at the site. ]