Yesterday, the New York Times ran and "investigative" piece on Ted Cruz's finances. I their story they point to an alleged failure by Ted Cruz to report a loan he received to finance his campaign:
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.
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.
Neither loan appears in reports the Ted Cruz for Senate Committee filed with the Federal Election Commission, in which candidates are required to disclose the source of money they borrow to finance their campaigns. Other campaigns have been investigated and fined for failing to make such disclosures, which are intended to inform voters and prevent candidates from receiving special treatment from lenders. There is no evidence that the Cruzes got a break on their loans.
So he got a loan to finance his campaign, he didn't get special treatment on the loan, but he failed to report it. But the hypocrisy:
There would have been nothing improper about Mr. Cruz obtaining bank loans for his campaign, as long as they were disclosed. But such a disclosure might have conveyed the wrong impression for his candidacy.
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.
Earlier this year, when asked about the political clout of Goldman Sachs in particular, he replied, “Like many other players on Wall Street and big business, they seek out and get special favors from government.”
This is an administrative error that can be fixed by filing an amendment. But the GOP establishment, as reflected through their mouthpiece Jennifer Rubin, thinks this is the silver bullet they were in search of: 10 reasons that Goldman Sachs loan is a nightmare for Ted Cruz.
The GOP is lucky to find this out now. Imagine what would happen if the party nominated someone with this to go up against the Clinton attack machine. It’s one more reason not to nominate someone with such a thin public record who has never been thoroughly vetted.
Right, like a paper mistake is going to kill a candidate when a federal investigation of the Clinton Foundation won't bother Hillary.
It really isn't entirely true.
Ted Cruz's primary runoff against Dewhurst was July 31, 2012. He publicly disclosed the margin loan July 9, 2012. pic.twitter.com/8yyV4zxrV9
— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) January 14, 2016
And the loan had been reported on in the press in 2013
As of the end of 2012, Cruz listed a “Loan to Ted Cruz For Senate” as an asset valued at$500,001 to $1 million. However, because of the 2002 changes to campaign finance law, the committee is limited to making loan repayments to the candidate (1) from funds received before an election, or (2) $250,000 from funds received after an election. Because of earlier loan repayments, as of the end of 2012, the committee could only legally repay the candidate $298,000. This includes $48,000 for his outstanding primary election loans, and $250,000 for his outstanding runoff election loans. ... Cruz does list on his personal financial disclosure report as liabilities two loans received in 2012. One was a margin loan of $250,001 to $500,000 from Goldman Sachs. The other was a line of credit of $250,001 to $500,000 obtained from Citibank.
Cruz took out the loan before his primary campaign against David Dewhurst. It was disclosed at the time, though apparently not carried forward. It was reported on in the press in 2013 and, to make matters worse, Cruz is going to be left holding the bag for the loan because the election committee can't legally repay him. So Rubin's fulmination is wrong. And Cruz has explained the circumstances, so it isn't like there is deception involved:
There are two take aways from this story. The first is that the loan was disclosed during Cruz's primary challenge to David Dewhurst. The fact that the loan was not carried forward on his general election documentation is not a deal of any type. The loan was not hidden and Rubin's pantie wetting fit over hypocrisy is just as dumb as she is. The law can be complied with by filing an amended report which Cruz has indicated he will do. The second take away is "is this all ya got?" Really. You investigate a man's financial disclosure and the best you can come up with to justify your labor is a loan that was disclosed on one report and not disclosed on a second report but was not improper in any other respect?
And maybe there is a third. Just how good is the NYT when it misses stuff that is on the internet and can be found via a Google search? Or did it miss it?