Goldman Sachs bought and paid for so Ted Cruz, how stupid is America?

The recent revelation that Republican hopeful Ted Cruz failed to disclose a 2012 $1 million loan from the Wall Street investment bank, Goldman Sachs, raises legitimate legal concerns, and could spell trouble for the presidential hopeful. As Mediaite.com's Rachel Stockman reports (via LawNewz.com),

The New York Times first reported that campaign disclosure reports show that before a scheduled run-off in the May 2012 senatorial election, Cruz received a low-interest loan from his wife’s bank, which his campaign committee never reported to the Federal Election Commission.

 

The Cruz camp is brushing this all off as a BIG oversight.  Cruz promised to immediately amend the filing if there were any problems. The Texas Senator said that he and his wife put their liquid net worth into the campaign and the loans in question were “disclosed over and over and over again.”

 

That’s great but here’s the problem: what he did could still be a violation of federal law.

“The fact that the information was out there somewhere doesn’t negate the fact that it wasn’t disclosed on the candidate’s campaign disclosure… that’s a violation of federal law,” Paul Ryan with The Campaign Legal Center told LawNewz.com.  The group is a nonpartisan, and goes after Republicans and Democrats alike for campaign finance violations.

To be clear, here’s the federal law that Cruz may have violated:

52 USC 30104 (b)(2) (6) 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) requires the reporting of “repayment of loans made by or guaranteed by the candidate”

So the question is, what can happen next? Clearly someone will have to file an official complaint (I have no doubt that will happen). If they do, the FEC could impose fines.

The real problem for Cruz is if evidence somehow emerges that this was ‘knowing and willful.’ If that could be demonstrated, then Cruz could potentially be prosecuted criminally by the U.S. Department of Justice, according to campaign finance experts. Cruz insists that it’s not.

“The bottom line – any money that is obtained or received to fund a campaign needs to be reported,” Ryan said.

As Martin Armstrong concludes,

The dishonesty here is that Cruz has pretended to stand against the bankers. “Like many other players on Wall Street and big business, they seek out and get special favors from government,” Cruz told the New York Times previously. How dishonest is this statement and then forgetting to report a loan from Goldman Sachs? His wife Heidi, is a managing director at Goldman Sachs and has taken a temporary “leave”during his presidential campaign.

 

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?