Tag Archives: Campaign Finance

Ted Cruz – Vexatious Litigant?

Good old “Lyin’ Ted” Cruz (TP – Texas) is suing the Federal Election Commission seeking to invalidate a law limiting the ability of  candidates to use contributions repay his or her loans to the campaign.   Part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform placed limits on the ability of candidates to repay their loans from political contributions.  Roughly speaking, a candidate cannot repay more than $250,000 to himself or herself with money raised after the election.  It appears that Cruz loaned his campaign directly or indirectly about $260,000 and was repaid $250,000.  That means this suit is over the grand sum of $10,000.  Cruz claims that the law is a violation of his First Amendment right to free speech and given the Supreme Court’s conclusion that $ = Speech, Cruz may be on to something.  The consequences of a favorable ruling for the Tea Party favorite could be interesting.  A candidate could place a huge bet on his or her success and then have unlimited ability to use elected office to repay that winning bet from the well-heeled donors seeking favorable treatment. In any event – given the amount involved – maybe LT is due for a new nickname.  How about “Penny Ante” Ted?

Brilliant Attorney Ted Cruz Can’t Figure Out How to Follow the Law

Multiple outlets are reporting that Sen. Ted Cruz (TP-Texas) failed to report as much as $500,000 in loans from Goldman Sachs that may have been used to help finance his longshot  2012 Senate campaign.  Cruz is downplaying this as an “inadvertent” filing error, but part of his Senate campaign was premised on his anti-Wall Street rhetoric and the fact that he was getting preferential loans from a Wall Street giant (that also employed his wife) would not have fit well into that narrative.  Cruz explains one of the loans as a “standard margin loan” that you would have with any brokerage account.  Red calls BS on that one.  There is nothing “standard” about margin loans and they are the easiest way for the average investor to get in trouble and rack up big losses.  Red sees potential trouble for the high-flying Tea Party darling in the weeks running up to Iowa.  Ted’s “nothing to see here, move along” explanation doesn’t pass the smell test and how did the oh-so-brilliant attorney from Texas not manage to follow disclosure laws which are pretty damn clear on their face.  Isn’t interpreting law supposed to be his strong suit?