The issue isn't really whether Cruz technically broke the law, but that he has misrepresented his finances to the public.
Except that he didn't. All that information that the NYT found was found in public filings. It wasn't in the
right public filings to meet the technical demands of the law, but it was still all public, which is how the NYT found out about it.
Not persuasive. Let's go through the reasons:
1. He is still indebted to Goldman.
It was a standard loan, given at low interest rates because it was secured. Goldman Sachs cannot change the terms of the loan, and Cruz doesn't need them to. So nothing he does as a politician will have any effect on the loan. The terms won't be improved if he does their bidding, and they won't degrade if he doesn't.
2. He didn’t simply “forget” to file the disclosure; he made up a self-reverential story to go with it.
No. The story is reverential towards his
wife, not him.
3. He is going on stage tonight in a debate against several highly skilled candidates who don’t like him to begin with.
He did fine in the debate.
4. Trump is going to have a field day with this one, which is certainly a more solid reason than his birther hooey on which to disqualify Cruz.
See above.
5. Cruz’s campaign is built on the populist, anti-establishment narrative.
This is incoherent. Nothing about being rich precludes one from being a populist. And the charge of influence peddling is absurd. These were not sweetheart loans, they were (as even the NYT article admits)
standard loans for someone with Cruz's resources. It's notable that even though this accusation depends upon the loans being special, Rubin never actually outright states that they are, she only implies it. And that's because they weren't. She wouldn't have an argument at all if she was honest about that point.
6. It is hard to say this is an oversight.
No, actually, it's not hard at all. Campaign finance laws are byzantine.
7. This is precisely the sort of slick, dishonest conduct he accuses professional politicians of undertaking.
Again, Rubin is assuming that the loan was special. But it wasn't.
8. Oh, it was not just Goldman.
So what?
9. This all feeds into Trump’s argument that he is not beholden to anyone, unlike greedy politicians.
Again, the loans were standard loans. Are you "beholden" to your bank because of your mortgage? Not if it was a standard mortgage, and you're paying it off. And Trump is no stranger to borrowing money himself, and much, much more of it than Cruz ever did.
10. Cruz is going to spend more news cycles defending himself when he wanted to be firing up his troops and attacking others.
Perhaps, but that says nothing about the merit of the charge itself.
