Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz didn't disclose a loan he received from Goldman Sachs for his campaign. He was a managing director at the investment bank before taking a leave to run for president.
Campaign rules dictate that candidates reveal all sources of income for a bid for office, including loans. He received between $250,000 and $500,000 from GS as a low-interest loan at the start of his campaign. Cruz's campaign is trying to explain the failure as "inadvertent" (I was waiting for "an oversight"), saying that he did disclose a money market account that included the GS loan and another from Citibank.
Particularly troubling for Cruz is the contrast between this news and how he presented himself and his wife. He spoke in interviews about their decision to use all of their liquid savings, about $1 million, for his campaign. Yesterday, The Wall Street Journal quoted Cruz saying he wouldn't bail out "rich Wall Street banks." As the candidate tries to distance himself from Wall Street, his ties are closer than he admits.
A New York Times article also questions whether the decision with his wife happened as he described it (that she immediately agreed) and whether they did, in fact, use all of their assets:
During 2012, they sold securities worth $82,000 to $355,000, and the value of other holdings was reduced by, at most, $155,000. . . All told, the value of their cash and securities in 2012 saw a net increase of as much as $400,000 - even as the Cruzes were supposedly liquidating everything to finance Mr. Cruz's Senate campaign."
- Is this nit picky, or does Ted Cruz has some real explaining to do?
- How, if at all, do you think this will affect Cruz's campaign? Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton also faced financial questions, yet the criticism seems to have blown over.
- What else, if anything, should the Cruz campaign say at this point? Should Cruz issue a statement himself?