This is breaking from the New York Times.
What a sweet, endearing story he told on the campaign trail:
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.
Except that’s not what happened, and he knew it:
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.
See that? 1.2 million—“all we had saved.”
Except it wasn’t. The money was obtained from Goldman Sachs and Citibank.
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.
There is no explanation because Cruz chose to lie about it in campaign finance documents, and to make up a phony story to dupe voters on the campaign trail. As the Times notes, there is nothing improper about obtaining bank loans to finance a political campaign, provided they are disclosed. But perhaps a campaign financed completely by Goldman Sachs would have conflicted with his so-called conservative principles:
Mr. Cruz, a conservative former Texas solicitor general, was campaigning as a populist firebrand who criticized Wall Street bailouts and the influence of big banks in Washington. It is a theme he has carried into his bid for the Republican nomination for president.
Cruz has also criticized Goldman, his wife’s firm (she is on leave as managing director for Goldman), for getting “special treatment” from the government. According to the Times, the loans were made out at 3% interest rate, “which appear to be generally in line with rates available to wealthy borrowers at that time.”
The failure to report the Goldman Sachs loan, for as much as $500,000, was “inadvertent,” [Cruz campaign spokesperson, Catherine Frazier] said, adding that the campaign would file corrected reports as necessary. Ms. Frazier said there had been no attempt to hide anything.
Of course not. I get loans exceeding my total net worth all the time and I just completely forget about them.
The federal guide to campaign finance reporting for congressional candidates makes it clear that if the original source of money for a candidate’s personal loan was a margin loan or a line of credit, it must be disclosed.
“Bank loans to candidates and loans derived from advances on a candidate’s brokerage accounts, credit cards, home equity line of credit, or other lines of credit obtained for use in connection with his or her campaign must be reported by the committee,” according to the guide.
Cruz’s entire political career is based on a fraud.