Connect with us


Lyin’ Ted: An Attorney Who Claims Amnesia About the Law

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.



“The law says if you get a loan for the purpose of funding a campaign, you have to show the original source of the loan, the terms of the loan and you even have to provide a copy of the loan document to the Federal Election Commission.”

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.

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.

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.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Cruz’s presidential campaign, Catherine Frazier, acknowledged that the loan from Goldman Sachs, drawn against the value of the Cruzes’ brokerage account, was a source of money for the Senate race. Ms. Frazier added that Mr. Cruz also sold stocks and liquidated savings, but she did not address whether the Citibank loan was used.

The failure to report the Goldman Sachs loan, for as much as $500,000, was “inadvertent,” she said, adding that the campaign would file corrected reports as necessary. Ms. Frazier said there had been no attempt to hide anything.

“These transactions have been reported in one way or another on his many public financial disclosures and the Senate campaign’s F.E.C. filings,” she said.

Kenneth A. Gross, a former election commission lawyer who specializes in campaign finance law, said that listing a bank loan in an annual Senate ethics report — which deals only with personal finances — would not satisfy the requirement that it be promptly disclosed to election officials during a campaign.

“They’re two different reporting regimes,” he said. “The law says if you get a loan for the purpose of funding a campaign, you have to show the original source of the loan, the terms of the loan and you even have to provide a copy of the loan document to the Federal Election Commission.”

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.”

In recounting the decision to put all of their savings into the campaign, Mr. Cruz said in the 2013 Times interview that Mrs. Cruz immediately agreed to his proposal, even though he was trailing in the polls and still viewed as a long shot against Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who spent $24 million of his own money on the race.

“What astonished me, then and now, was Heidi within 60 seconds said, ‘Absolutely,’ with no hesitation,” Mr. Cruz said.


Mrs. Cruz, who is on leave as a managing director at Goldman Sachs, later suggested that the reality was more complicated.

She told Politico in 2014 that she thought they should apply “common investment sense” and not use their own money for the campaign “unless it made the difference” in winning. The article did not mention anything about loans from banks.

The money from the Cruzes allowed his campaign to keep running television ads in the period preceding the primary election, including a $300,000 ad buy that highlighted the story of Mr. Cruz’s father’s flight from Cuba in the 1950s after opposing the Batista regime. Mr. Cruz earned enough votes in the primary to qualify for a runoff, where he defeated Mr. Dewhurst and went on to win the general election.

The ethics reports that candidates file with the Senate require them to list all assets they held at the close of the year or that generated income during the year. Assets are reported in broad categories of value, such as $1,001 to $15,000 and $100,001 to $250,000.

Mr. Cruz’s filings show that at the close of 2011, he and his wife had cash and securities in bank, brokerage and retirement accounts worth $1.3 million to $3.4 million. They also had mortgages and a loan against Mr. Cruz’s partnership equity in his law firm. During 2012, they sold securities worth $82,000 to $355,000, and the value of other holdings was reduced by, at most, $155,000.

However, they also added a money-market account with $250,000 to $500,000 in it, and the value of other holdings increased by as much as $435,000. 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.

The biggest change in the Cruzes’ finances in 2012 was the addition of the two bank loans, each valued at $250,000 to $500,000, during the first half of the year. One was a margin loan from Goldman Sachs. Margin loans, which are secured by holdings in a brokerage account, are often used to buy more stocks, but can be obtained for almost any purpose.

The other loan was a line of credit from Citibank. Even if the Citibank loan did not go directly into the Senate campaign, it could have freed up other assets for that purpose. While the Cruzes were well paid — he made more than $1 million a year as a law partner, and she earned a six-figure income as an executive in Goldman Sachs’s Houston office — they also had big bills, including mortgage payments and full-time child care.


Both loans had floating interest rates around 3 percent, according to Mr. Cruz’s Senate disclosures, which appear to be generally in line with rates available to wealthy borrowers at that time.

During the remainder of 2012, the Cruz campaign repaid Mr. Cruz for about half of the money he lent. His Senate disclosures show that he and his wife paid off the Citibank loan that same year. As for the Goldman Sachs loan, it remains outstanding, though the balance has been reduced to between $50,000 and $100,000.

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.

Original NYT Article;

Why Ted Cruz has Amnesia

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Appellate Circuit

Texas Solicitor General Appointments in Recent times Include Sen. Ted Cruz and Fifth Cir. Judge Jim Ho

Notable alumni of the Office of the Solicitor General – 6 are now either District or Federal Judges and one on the Texas Supreme Court.




Musical Chairs: Jim Ho Replaces Ted Cruz as Texas Solicitor General (SG)

APR 10, 2008 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: MAR 26, 2022

Congratulations to our old friend James Ho. The good news first surfaced on Sophistic Miltonian Serbonian Blog:

A quiet trickle of a rumor last week was that James C. Ho, currently of counsel with Gibson Dunn and a former law clerk to Justice Thomas at SCOTUS, has been tapped to serve as the next Solicitor General of Texas.

If this is true, Texas will be in very capable hands as Jim Ho is certainly one of the best appellate lawyers in the state (and the country for that matter), and has demonstrated great and valuable political savvy on the national stage as well.

Moreover, it is interesting to note that, now, three of the four solicitors general have clerked for SCOTUS (Greg Coleman – Justice Thomas; Ted Cruz – the late Chief Rehnquist; and Jim Ho – Justice Thomas).

A SCOTUS clerkship now appears to be a prerequisite to the post, which makes eminent sense because one of the OSG’s main functions is to represent the State before SCOTUS-a job we have noted current General Cruz has done extremely well.

That preliminary report appeared on Tuesday; the news is now confirmed.

Here are press releases from the Texas Attorney General,  [page removed from internet] Greg Abbott, and the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, both praising Ho for his past achievements, and wishing him well in his latest endeavor.

Over at the Supreme Court of Texas blog, Texas appellate lawyer Don Cruse (another old friend) has some interesting observations:

What’s somewhat unusual about Ho’s legal career path is that he did his Supreme Court clerkship midstream, after he had already spent five years as a lawyer working in the political branches.

According to the data on his LinkedIn profile, Ho finished his clerkship for Justice Thomas in July 2006….

The recency of that clerkship may, however, raise one small speed bump — the United States Supreme Court’s rule barring former clerks from participating in cases before that Court for two years from the end of their clerkship.

Because Ho’s clerkship at the Court did not end until July 2006, he is barred (if I understand the rule) from any participation in the United States Supreme Court docket until late this summer.

I’m confident that the Texas SG’s office has other lawyers capable of handling those duties until then.

Indeed — as Don Cruse well knows, having worked in that office himself before starting his own practice.

As for outgoing Texas SG Ted Cruz, it’s not clear where he’ll land.

Given his stellar talents as an advocate, reflected in his huge recent win in the Medellin case, any firm would be lucky to have him.

But we hear that private practice may just be a way station for him, on the way to what one source describes as “bigger and better — and more political — things…”

Once again, congratulations to Jim Ho on a fantastic new gig!

P.S. If you’d like to learn more facts about Jim, of a personal rather than professional nature —

e.g., that he’s married to another fabulous former SCOTUS clerk, Allyson Newton Ho

— check out our profile of him, back at Underneath Their Robes.

The next Solicitor General of Texas [Sophistic Miltonian Serbonian Blog]
New Texas SG [Supreme Court of Texas Blog]
Attorney General Abbott Appoints New Solicitor General [Texas Attorney General]
NAPABA Celebrates Appointment of James Ho as Solicitor General of Texas [NAPABA]
James C. Ho. bio [Gibson Dunn & Crutcher]
Justice Thomas’s OT 2005 Clerks [Underneath Their Robes]

List of solicitors general

The following is a table of solicitors general of Texas.[2]


  Republican (7)   Democratic (0)   No party (0)

No. Name Took office Left office Attorney General
1 Greg Coleman 1999 2001 John Cornyn
2 Julie Parsley 2001 2002
3 Ted Cruz January 9, 2003 May 12, 2008 Greg Abbott
4 James C. Ho May 2008 December 9, 2010
5 Jonathan F. Mitchell December 10, 2010 January 5, 2015
6 Scott A. Keller January 2015 September 10, 2018 Ken Paxton
7 Kyle D. Hawkins September 10, 2018 February 1, 2021
8 Judd Stone February 1, 2021 Incumbent

Notable alumni of the Office of the Solicitor General – 6 are now either District or Federal Judges and one on the Texas Supreme Court.

National Asian Pacific American Bar Association

1612 K Street N.W., Suite 1400
Washington, D.C. 20006

April 9, 2008

Contact: John C. Yang
(202) 719-4483


Washington, DC – The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) is pleased that the Attorney General of Texas Greg Abbott has announced his intent to appoint James C. Ho as the next Solicitor General of Texas, effective after the expected departure of the current Solicitor General Ted Cruz.

Mr. Ho will become the highest ranking Asian Pacific American statewide official in Texas, and one of only a very small handful of Asian Pacific Americans to have held statewide office in Texas.

The Office of the Solicitor General for Texas is responsible for supervising and approving all appellate litigation in the State of Texas.

The Texas Solicitor General regularly appears before the Supreme Court of the United States, the Supreme Court of Texas, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and Texas state courts of appeal.

Mr. Ho is presently Of Counsel with the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

He previously has served in all three branches of the federal government: as Chief Counsel to Senator John Cornyn of Texas; as a law clerk on the Supreme Court for the Honorable Clarence Thomas, and on the Fifth Circuit for the Honorable Jerry E. Smith; and in the Department of Justice both as a Special Assistant to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights and as an Attorney- Adviser in the Office of Legal Counsel.

Mr. Ho was recognized as one of NAPABA’s “Best Lawyers Under 40” in 2006, and currently serves as a Co-Chair for NAPABA’s Judiciary Committee.

He also has been recognized as a “Texas Super Lawyer” in Law & Politics, a “Rising Star in Texas” by Texas Monthly, and in 2005 as one of the 35 “Best Congressional Aides Under 35” in the publication The Hill.

“NAPABA applauds Texas Attorney General Abbott for his leadership in appointing Jim Ho,”

said Les Jin, Executive Director of NAPABA.

“The Asian Pacific American population is growing rapidly in Texas, and the inclusion of Asian Americans in positions of leadership within the Texas state government is the logical next step.”

John C. Yang, Co-Chair of NAPABA’s Judiciary Committee, added,

“Mr. Ho is a very talented attorney who will represent the State of Texas, and its rich diversity of residents, extremely well. We look forward to working with him on issues that affect the Asian Pacific American population in that state.”

May 13, 2005

April 5, 2021

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP is pleased to announce that Kyle D. Hawkins has rejoined the firm as a partner in the Houston office. Hawkins recently served as the Solicitor General of Texas and will focus on appellate and constitutional law, class actions and commercial litigation.

“We are pleased to welcome Kyle back to the firm and to our Houston office,”

said Ken Doran, Chairman and Managing Partner of Gibson Dunn.

“We have one of the top appellate practices in the U.S., and with his reputation as a highly skilled advocate at the state and national levels, Kyle will be a terrific addition to the practice. His significant government experience and insight into Texas state agencies will greatly benefit our clients.”

“Kyle is an experienced appellate advocate, who is widely respected for his integrity and oral advocacy,”

said Allyson Ho, Co-Chair of the firm’s Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice Group.

“As the State of Texas’s most high-profile litigator, Kyle handled the state’s most important cases. His profile and experience will enrich our Texas appellate team, and he is a natural fit to serve as the Houston office’s first litigation partner as we expand our presence throughout the state.”

“I’m thrilled to return to Gibson Dunn,”

said Hawkins.

“I look forward to working closely with the firm’s litigation and appellate teams to grow the firm’s offering in Texas and across the U.S.”

About Kyle D. Hawkins

Hawkins will practice in the areas of appellate and constitutional law, class actions and commercial litigation. Prior to his return to the firm, he served as Solicitor General of Texas from 2018 to 2021 and as Assistant Solicitor General of Texas from 2017 to 2018. As Solicitor General, he was responsible for supervising and approving all appellate litigation for the State of Texas. He has presented 30 oral arguments, including four before the U.S. Supreme Court, six before the Texas Supreme Court, 17 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (including five before en banc panels), and three before the Texas Courts of Appeals in Austin, Dallas, and Fort Worth. He also served as an adjunct professor at the University of Texas School of Law, teaching a course on U.S. Supreme Court practice.

Prior, Hawkins practiced in Gibson Dunn’s Washington, D.C. office from 2011 to 2013 and from 2014 to 2017.

He clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. from 2013 to 2014

and for

Judge Edith H. Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from 2010 to 2011.

Hawkins graduated summa cum laude in 2009 from the University of Minnesota Law School, where he served as editor-in-chief of the Minnesota Law Review.

He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College in 2002.

Jonathan F. Mitchell is principal at Mitchell Law PLLC. He received his law degree with high honors from the University of Chicago Law School, where he was an articles editor of The University of Chicago Law Review and a member of the Order of the Coif.

After graduating from law school, Mr. Mitchell clerked for Judge J. Michael Luttig of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and for Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court of the United States. He then served as an Attorney-Adviser in the Office of Legal Counsel of the United States Department of Justice from 2003 through 2006. After leaving the Department of Justice, Mr. Mitchell was a Visiting Assistant Professor at the University of Chicago Law School from 2006 through 2008, and then an Assistant Professor of Law at George Mason University from 2008 through 2010.

In 2010, Mr. Mitchell was appointed Solicitor General of Texas, a position he held until January 2015. After leaving the Texas Solicitor General’s office, Mr. Mitchell served as the Searle Visiting Professor of Law at the University of Texas School of Law, a Visiting Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, and a Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution. Mr. Mitchell has published numerous works of scholarship in top-10 law journals, and he has written articles on textualism, national-security law, criminal law and procedure, judicial review and judicial federalism, and the legality of stare decisis in constitutional adjudication.

Mr. Mitchell has argued four times before the Supreme Court of the United States, and more than a dozen times in the federal courts of appeals. He has also argued before Supreme Court of Texas and in numerous trial courts. He has authored more than 100 briefs, and his brief for the respondents in Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641 (2012), and his brief for the petitioners in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014), each received a Best Brief Award from the National Association of Attorneys General.

Supreme Court Arguments

Campbell–Ewald Co. v. Gomez, No. 14-857 (October 14, 2015)

  • Represented class-action plaintiff who opposed the defendant’s attempt to moot the case by offering monetary relief solely to the class representative


Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, No. 12-1146 (February 24, 2014)

  • Represented States challenging the Obama Administration’s greenhouse-gas regulations


EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, No. 12-1182 (December 10, 2013)

  • Represented a coalition of States challenging the Obama Administration’s cross-state air-pollution rule


Gonzalez v. Thaler, No. 10-895 (November 2, 2011)

  • Represented the State of Texas in a habeas corpus case involving the interpretation of AEDPA’s statute of limitations



Professional Activities

  • Member, Practitioners’ Reading Group for the ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, evaluating U.S. Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, 2016
  • Board of Advisors, New Civil Liberties Alliance

Judd Stone II, the Texas solicitor general, makes his Supreme Court debut.

Nov 5, 2021

Judd Stone II, a former clerk to the conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, was named solicitor general of Texas earlier this year. On Monday, he will take on his most high-profile challenge to date: arguing before the Supreme Court on behalf of the state in two challenges to its new anti-abortion law.

Mr. Stone, who took his post in February, joined the state solicitor general’s office in 2020.

He was appointed by Ken Paxton, the state attorney general.

His predecessor, Kyle Hawkins, called Mr. Stone’s appellate advocacy skills “unmatched.” He oversees an office of attorneys who supervise and approve all appellate litigation for the state.

Before joining the office of the solicitor general, Mr. Stone was chief counsel for Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, himself a former Texas solicitor general.

Mr. Stone practiced law in Washington, D.C., at the Supreme Court and Appellate Practice Group for Morgan, Lewis, and Bockius, and the Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel, and Frederick law firm. He was also an Olin-Searle-Smith fellow at Harvard Law School.

Before his career in private practice, Mr. Stone clerked for Mr. Scalia,

for Judge Edith Jones on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,


for Justice Daniel Winfree on the Alaska Supreme Court.

He graduated from the University of Texas at Dallas and from Northwestern University Law School.

Mr. Hawkins, the previous solicitor general, announced his resignation in January. Notably, he had declined to join Mr. Paxton’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Continue Reading

Editors Choice

Lyin’ Sen Ted Cruz Finchin’ Funds into 2021 by Deception

Sen. Ted Cruz is using the competitive Georgia runoff contests to raise money for himself. He asked for $5 contributions to his new Keep Georgia Red fund but he actually pockets donations.





Lyin’ Sen. Ted Cruz is maintaining his momentum at financial deception into 2021.

Ted Cruz’s Georgia Runoff Fundraising Is Actually Going to His Campaign. He’s Not Alone

The runoff is a gold mine for politicians. And now that they can run Facebook ads in Georgia, they’re rushing for it.

Dec. 30, 2020 | Republished by LIT: Dec. 31, 2020

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) needs your help to keep the U.S. Senate in Republican hands. So blared a handful of Facebook ads that Cruz’s campaign committee purchased this month. But none of them were actually raising money for the Republican candidates in Georgia. Instead, every penny donated went directly to… Cruz.

The Cruz campaign bought 15 separate ads on Facebook over the past two weeks, each featuring a video of the senator dramatically hyping the need to hold two U.S. Senate seats in Georgia runoff contests.

“Gun-grabbing, tax hikes, open borders, and stacking the Supreme Court. That’s the radical Democrat agenda if they win the Georgia Senate elections,” Cruz declared.

He asked for $5 contributions to his new “Keep Georgia Red fund.” But Facebook users who clicked through to the online donation page—and read the fine print at the bottom—would see that the actual beneficiary was Cruz’s own campaign committee, not Sens. Kelly Loeffler or David Perdue, the two Republicans running for re-election in Georgia.

Cruz is just one of a number of elected officials of both parties using the competitive—and extremely expensive—Georgia runoff contests to raise money for themselves. Increasingly, those officials are doing so on Facebook, where a political ad ban instituted in late October was lifted this month, but only for ads in Georgia.

That’s led to a rash of Facebook ads invoking the Senate contests in the state on behalf of out-of-state political candidates. On some occasions, the ads don’t even mention the runoff contests, but are targeted at users in Georgia in an effort to exploit Facebook’s state-specific political advertising policy.

Facebook did not respond to questions about that apparent loophole. But the efforts by Cruz and others illustrates the difficulties the company has had in crafting a political ad policy that isn’t criticized as either too restrictive or too easy to exploit.

The social-media giant’s advertising ban, designed to limit misinformation related to the presidential election outcome, temporarily shut down a mammoth political fundraising tool around and after the election. When the company eased the ban this month for ads in Georgiacampaigns jumped at the chance to get back into the Facebook advertising game. Last month, the National Republican Senatorial Committee encouraged its members to use grassroots donor enthusiasm surrounding the runoffs to help build their own fundraising programs.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has led the way for his caucus. His campaign has been sending some text messages and running Georgia-focused Google ads linking to a page on the GOP fundraising platform WinRed that says donations will benefit McConnell’s own campaign committee.

According to a source familiar with the arrangement, McConnell’s Georgia-focused fundraising efforts have actually served to cover the cost of using his massive email and text messaging lists to solicit donations that are split between the senator and the two Republican Senate candidates in Georgia. A McConnell spokesperson said that his post-Election Day fundraising efforts, subsidized by his direct Georgia-focused fundraising, have brought in more than $3.4 million for Loeffler and Perdue.

These split fundraising efforts are a key mechanism to boost grassroots financial support for Senate candidates in Georgia, according to guidance published by WinRed. Some members of Congress have taken advantage of that strategy. Reps. Cathy McMorris Rogers (R-WA) and Ashley Hinson (R-IA), for instance, have both purchased Facebook ads this month linking to donation pages that split the proceeds evenly between their own campaign committees and those of Perdue and Loeffler.

Many, though, continue to direct donations purely to their own campaigns or political vehicles. And it’s not just Republicans getting in on the act. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), for instance, has run a pair of Facebook ads this month with urgent pleas to financially support Democratic Senate candidates in Georgia.

“If you want to take back the Senate and retire Mitch McConnell, the single most important thing you can do right now is donate to elect Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff in Georgia,” the ads state. The ads link to a donation page that specifies that the funds will go not to Ossoff or Warnock, but to Gillibrand’s political action committee, Off the Sidelines PAC.

Gillibrand’s PAC largely exists to steer funds to other Democratic candidates, so it’s not inconceivable that some of the money raised through those ads will support Democrats in Georgia. Indeed, the PAC donated to both Ossoff and Warnock ahead of the general election. But by law, it can only give each of them $5,000 before the runoff contest in January, likely less than what the PAC is raising with appeals to the Peach State senate contests.

Then there are those who are trying to raise money off all the political activity in Georgia without even pretending to care about the runoffs.

Congressman-elect Madison Cawthorn (R-NC) purchased a handful of Facebook ads last week in which he pledged to use his new post in a fruitless and conspiratorial attempt to nullify the 2020 presidential election. “Donate below to join the fight and help save our American way of life!” it read. An additional five Cawthorn ads asked people to “defend freedom and defend Georgia!” But like all the others, they linked to Cawthorn’s own donation page. Cawthorn won’t even be sworn in until this weekend.

President Donald Trump himself has led the pack in using the Georgia Senate contests to raise money for his own political endeavors. His political team has been buying Google ads and sending out fundraising emails for weeks declaring the urgent need to hold the GOP Senate majority, and asking for contributions to his own political groups. But the fine print of those solicitations makes clear that a major chunk of the change will be going to Trump’s own committee and a smaller chunk to the Republican National Committee.

The tactic has spread even more widely since Facebook opened its political ads to Georgia-related appeals. Like Cruz, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) has run a host of ads this month asking for donations on behalf of his Republican colleagues, Loeffler and Perdue.

“Democrats, with their radical agenda, seek to destroy our country. The center of that fight is now in Georgia. We must keep the Senate,” declare 10 Facebook ads run by the Lee campaign this month. “Join the fight by chipping in what you can.”

Ten Lee campaign ads run this month linked to the senator’s WinRed page. His office insists that the money is finding its way to the upcoming contests.

“Sen. Lee’s multiple Facebook campaigns have raised tens of thousands of dollars for Georgia’s runoff candidates,” a Lee spokesperson said in an email. “Some of those campaigns have offered donors the opportunity to donate to Sen. Lee but less than $100 has been raised in that manner.”

But the language on the WinRed page promoted in Lee’s recent Facebook ads is pretty clear: “Your contribution will benefit Friends of Mike Lee.”

Continue Reading

Donald Trump

Lyin’ Ted Update: Texas Senator and Attorney Who Claimed Amnesia About the Law fined $35K

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.




Federal elections officials have fined Ted Cruz’s Senate campaign $35,000 for failing to report more than $1 million in bank loans he used to finance his successful long-shot race in Texas in 2012.

The penalty was part of a settlement reached by the Federal Election Commission and Mr. Cruz’s Senate campaign in February and disclosed in a letter this week from the commission to the Campaign Legal Center, a watchdog group that had filed a complaint over the unreported loans.

The fine comes more than three years after the loans were revealed by The New York Times in January 2016 and became a political issue for Mr. Cruz during the Republican presidential primary.

The Times article showed how Mr. Cruz claimed to have liquidated his family’s wealth and put it into his 2012 campaign, when in fact he had borrowed money from Goldman Sachs and Citibank without disclosing it on campaign filings.

Mr. Cruz initially described his actions as a clerical oversight, saying he had disclosed the loans on a different set of reports, filed with the Senate, that detailed his personal income, assets and debts. But those reports did not explain what the loans were used for, and he failed to disclose them, as required, on filings with the election commission, which would have showed the $1,064,000 from the two banks was used for campaign purposes.

On Friday, the Cruz campaign issued a statement adhering to its earlier explanation of how the loans were handled.

“As has repeatedly been reported, the loans were public at the time and fully disclosed on Senate ethics disclosures, but they weren’t reported correctly on the FEC forms,” the campaign said in a statement. “This agreed settlement resolves that filing mistake once and for all.”

The Fine Will Most Likely be Paid for by Goldman Sachs (c/o his wife)

During the Republican primary in 2016, Donald J. Trump, a candidate at the time, used the issue to taunt Mr. Cruz, saying Goldman Sachs had “total control” over him and calling the failure to report the loans “a very big thing.”

President Trump now has his own campaign finance problems, having been accused of arranging to pay off an adult film star, who claimed she had an affair with him, shortly before the November 2016 election. Federal prosecutors have described the transactions as a violation of campaign finance laws.

In Mr. Cruz’s case, the Campaign Legal Center filed its complaint in January 2016 in response to the article in The Times. A year later, the election commission, in a rare unanimous vote, accepted the conclusions of its staff that Mr. Cruz’s campaign had not complied with the law.

Tara Malloy, a senior director at the legal center, said that Mr. Cruz’s failure to properly report his loans meant that in “the homestretch of a high-profile election, voters were misled about Cruz’s personal and campaign finances.”

“Candidates should take seriously their legal requirement to disclose where their campaign money comes from,” she said.

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2022 is an online trading name which is wholly owned by Blogger Inc., a nonprofit 501(c)(3) registered in Delaware. | All Rights Reserved.