In an interview with Fox Business host Stuart Varney, former Republican Texas Congressman and three-time presidential candidate Ron Paul was asked whom libertarians should throw their support behind, now that Senator Rand Paul has suspended his campaign for president. He said that no one remaining on the Republican side really believes in free market values. Senator Ted Cruz , he said, is “owned by Goldman Sachs” and has more in common with Hillary Clinton than libertarians have with any Republican candidate:
This isn’t the first time Ted Cruz has been accused of being “owned by Goldman Sachs.” Last month, Donald Trump sent out a series of tweets condemning the Texas Senator:
“Goldman Sachs owns him, he will do anything they demand. Not much of a reformer!”
“Ted Cruz purposely, and illegally, did not list on his personal disclosure form personally guaranteed loans from banks. They own him!”
“Based on the fact that Ted Cruz was born in Canada and is therefore a ‘natural born Canadian,’ did he borrow unreported loans from C banks?”
“Oh no, just reported that Ted Cruz didn’t report another loan, this one from Citi. Wow, no wonder banks do so well in the U.S. Senate.”
“The Ted Cruz wiseguy apology to the people of New York is a disgrace. Remember, his wife’s employer, and his lender, is located there!”
Ted Cruz’s Goldman Sachs association is nothing new or secret. His wife works at the Wall Street giant as a managing director, but has since taken an unpaid leave of absence during her husband’s presidential campaign.
To help launch his 2012 Senate campaign, Ted Cruz had reportedly taken out $1 million in low-interest loans from Goldman Sachs and Citibank, which his campaign failed to report in Federal Election Commission-required financial disclosures. Ted Cruz maintains that it was an oversight. Interestingly, Ron Paul had endorsed Ted Cruz for Senate in 2012.
According to Open Secrets, for his senate campaign, Ted Cruz received over $60,000 from individuals employed by Goldman Sachs. So far, during his 2016 presidential campaign, he’s received nearly $60,000 from Goldman Sachs employees.
Goldman Sachs was one of the many banks that were “too big to fail” that were subsequently bailed out with trillions in taxpayer money.
While Senator Ted Cruz bills himself as an anti-establishment, “tea party” conservative, it remains to be seen whether he can maintain that image amid his close associations with the large Wall Street investment firm.
Ted Cruz obviously isn’t the only Goldman Sachs benefactor in this presidential race. Politico reported last month:
Goldman Sachs employees are the top contributors to the Republican campaigns of Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio , according to an analysis of federal campaign finance records the Center for Responsive Politics conducted for POLITICO. They’ve given $483,500 to the campaign and super PAC supporting Bush and $79,600 to Rubio’s campaign and allied super PAC, the analysis shows.
Republican Ted Cruz’s wife is a Goldman Sachs executive whose colleagues have begun to step up with donations since she took a leave of absence to campaign and raise money for her husband. He’s taken in $43,575 from the company in total during his campaign.
And the firm has a long alliance with Democrat Hillary Clinton dating back to her Senate days. Goldman Sachs gave $169,850 to Clinton’s presidential campaign and super PAC, according to CRP’s analysis. The bank doled out $675,000 in speaking fees to Clinton after she left office.
Does Goldman Sachs “own” Ted Cruz? It’s probably a bit of an exaggeration. But one thing is for certain. All these candidates are campaigning for the same thing. They all want a shot at the White House. They’ll say anything to get people to vote for them, and they’ll hope that their past deeds and associations will be overlooked by the voters.
What happens most of the time is that once these politicians get into office, they forget everything they campaigned on. They’ll continue the policies of the previous administration. Every four years, America gets fooled into voting for someone who no one really likes but who is presented by the media as “the only one who can win.” And then we wonder why nothing ever really changes.