- Ted Cruz is passionate about his three-times-a-week podcast, The Verdict.
- He is accused of violating the law by directing ad revenue from his podcast to a super PAC.
- In a departure from his usual approach, he essentially refused to answer questions about it.
When I approached Sen. Ted Cruz at the Capitol this week, he seemed in good spirits and joked that I was “living the dream” when I struck up a conversation.
But the Texas Republican quickly became combative, erupting in recent weeks about his thrice-weekly podcast “The Verdict” and about a super PAC created for the sole purpose of helping him get re-elected. When I told him that I had a question about the strange story I had started, .
“Of course I do,” Cruz replied. “I understand that you have a mission to write an attack article.”
This is similar to the approach he took when asked about the controversy by a local television station in Houston, where he declined to substantively address the issue and instead called reporters “parroting attacks from left-wing Democrats.” He accused her of trying to “retaliate.”
All of this began in late March when iHeartMedia, the company that hosts Cruz's podcast, deposited more than $630,000 since early 2023 into Truth and Courage, a super PAC created to support Cruz's re-election bid. It started when the Houston Chronicle reported that
iHeartMedia, which signed on as the podcast's corporate partner in late 2022, acknowledged that the payments to the super PAC came from advertising revenue generated by the podcast.
However, campaign finance laws prohibit direct coordination between candidates and the super PACs that support them, and this payment does not imply that Mr. Cruz has any kind of agreement with iHeartMedia to direct ad revenue to super PACs. The possibility has emerged that this is clearly a violation of these laws.
When I asked Cruz if that was true, he said his team had already released a statement on the issue. However, the only such statement I could find was one given to the Houston Chronicle, which accused the media of “trying to shut it down.” ” His podcast noted that he appears “for free.”
Cruz typically speaks passionately about both his podcast and campaign finance law.
In some ways, it's not hard to see why Mr. Cruz would be upset. Mr. Cruz's scandal has generated negative publicity as he faces a re-election race against Democratic Rep. Colin Allred in November.
The Election Legal Center and End Citizens United also filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission accusing Cruz of violating campaign finance laws.
Oil company BP America asked iHeartMedia to remove its ads from the podcast, saying it was “not informed” that the ad funds “would be donated directly to the super PAC.”
But Mr. Cruz's refusal to answer questions about the arrangement is a departure from his typical approach.
When Allred first tried to raise the issue of whether Cruz's podcast was a distraction from the senator's responsibilities, the Texas senator confidently said that even though it would “take a significant amount of time,” , said that his podcast is actually “essential to getting my job done.” ” Cruz is also known for telling reporters on Capitol Hill to listen to his podcasts to better understand his own views on a variety of topics.
He has previously engaged with me on campaign finance issues, explained his opposition to legislation that would expose dark money spending in federal elections, and sat down with me to talk about the Supreme Court justice who bears his name. Ta.
In that case, Ted Cruz v. FEC, the Texas senator intentionally challenged existing campaign finance laws and asked the conservative Supreme Court to limit the existing $250,000 in funds that candidates can raise after an election. They sued the FEC to have the cap lifted. An election to repay a personal loan to a campaign.
The cap was designed as an anti-corruption measure, limiting the ability of donors to line the pockets of lawmakers.
Mr. Cruz gave me a relatively frank discussion in May 2023 of his reasons for opposing this, saying that the cap actually “prevents challengers from taking risks and financing their campaigns with their own funds.” ”, he claimed.
Since then, I have seen Sens. Cruz and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin pay off long-standing campaign contributions, and Sens. J.D. Vance of Ohio and Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma repay their corporate PACs. Same as accepting a donation.
So when I approached Mr. Cruz this week, I wondered if he was trying to do the same thing here that he had done before: challenge existing campaign finance laws with the intention of changing them. I asked him if he was trying to chant. And I expected him to be willing to explain his intentions, as he had always done.
“If you write me a positive story about what I've accomplished here and the bills I've passed, I'll answer your questions,” Cruz said. If you're just going to use attack pieces for now, defeat them.
