Interesting development.

It appears the Cruz Campaign is planning to slow walk the information on the 2011/2012 campaign loans:

(Yahoo News) Ted Cruz has rebuffed a request by the Federal Election Commission to disclose more information about some $1 million in loans he received from two major Wall Street banks during his 2012 Senate campaign.

In a letter to the FEC this week, the treasurer of Cruz’s 2012 campaign turned down a request by agency auditors to reveal in writing “the complete terms” of two personal loans Cruz received from Goldman Sachs and Citibank — the proceeds of which, he has since acknowledged, he used to finance his upstart race for the Senate. (more)

In essence the Ted Cruz campaign is saying they’ll go through the enforcement mechanism of the FEC instead of the compliance division. By going through the “enforcement division” (takes over a year) they can delay any damaging information from discovery until after the 2016 Presidential Election.

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.

The FEC requested information from the Cruz campaign, with a response due by March 8th, obviously the Cruz Camp does not want to disclose the information:

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.

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.]

Something very sketchy is going on…