Ted Cruz’ Gay Marriage Money

 

Cruz took the donations at a time when he was trying to out-position state Representative Dan Branch in an expected race to replace then-Attorney General Greg Abbott, who had been expected to run for governor. Abbott delayed his gubernatorial quest for four years when Rick Perry decided to seek re-election. Cruz out-pace Branch by raising more than $1 million in the first part of 2009.

The gay rights donations were from two very conservative investment bankers, one in New York and one in San Francisco. While both men would be in full agreement with Cruz on many issues, they were worlds apart on same-sex marriage even in 2009. But that did not stop Cruz from taking their money – and it was their money that gave Cruz his fundraising advantage over Branch.

One donor was Paul Elliott Singer of the hedge fund Elliott Management Corporation. Singer, whose son married his partner, donated $425,000 and raised another $500,000 to push for legalization of same-sex marriage in New York. In 2012, Singer donated $1 million to the American Unity PAC, with the purpose of supporting candidates who back gay marriage. Singer gave Cruz $25,000 in 2009. 

The other donor was Peter Thiel of San Francisco, a venture capitalist behind Facebook and PayPal. Thiel, who is openly gay, is more libertarian than Republican, having financially supported Ron Paul in the past. “I believe that gay rights and marriage rights for gay people should not be a partisan issue,” Thiel said at a 2010 fundraiser for the American Foundation for Equal Rights.”Gay marriage can’t be a partisan issue because as long there are partisan issues or cultural issues in this country, you’ll have trench warfare like on the western front in World War I. You’ll have lots of carnage and no progress.”  

In a 2009 essay published about a month before his $235,000 donation to Cruz, Thiel laid out his case for becoming a libertarian with the phrase: “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.” Thief blamed “welfare beneficiaries” and the women’s vote as having “rendered the notion of ‘capitalist democracy’ into an oxymoron.”

Less surprising than that Singer and Thiel would donate to a conservative candidate is the fact Cruz would accept their money at the same time he was appealing to Texas social conservatives on issues such as banning gay marriage in Texas and his defense before the U.S. Supreme Court of displaying the Ten Commandments on the Capitol grounds. Normally, I am hesitant to play the guilt-by-association game that politicians have to agree with their donors, but these two individuals made up a quarter of Cruz’ 2009 justification for why he was the more viable Republican candidate for attorney general.

But then, Cruz always has been something of an opportunist. In January 2011, it was not clear whether Perry would once against block his boss’ path to the Governor’s Mansion. But with Kay Bailey Hutchison retiring, the Senate seat was open. So he jumped into that race for the 2012 cycle. In his brief tenure in the Senate, he has shot into the national eye not so much by taking on Democrats as being a thorn in the side of the Republican leadership. At first this brought to my mind Louisiana’s Huey Long’s antagonizing of FDR. Senate Republicans hated Long. Senate Democrats loathed him. And President Roosevelt called Long one of the two most dangerous men in American. But Huey Long was a career politician compared to Ted Cruz. Long had served for 14 years as an elected Louisiana official before entering the Senate and demagoguing his way to national prominence. Even Texas’ version, William Lee “Pappy” O’Daniel, had two years as governor under his belt before entering the Senate.

I’ll leave the debate on the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, to the Democrats and Republicans. But glancing through the rest of the legislation filed by Cruz since he’s been in the Senate, mostly it is pandering. A look at a few:

S.505 – A bill to prohibit the use of drones to kill citizens of the United States within the United States. I haven’t heard of a drone strike in the U.S., but what about Texas Department of Public Safety helicotpers? That may not count because the people killed were not U.S. citizens.

S.1661 – A bill to require the U.S. State Department to offer rewards of up to $5 million for information regarding the attacks on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi. 

S.2024 – A bill to leave the definition of marriage up to the states.

S.2067 – A bill to prohibit the Department of Treasury from assigning tax statuses to organizations based on their political beliefs and activities. This stems for the slow approval of Tea Party tax-exemption determinations.

S.2170 – The American Energy Renaissance Act of 2014. Like Obamacare, I leave this one to the operatives of both sides. But essentially, it removes most restrictions on oil and gas production and refining. The legislation is as the heart of Cruz’s position on climate change: “data are not supporting what advocates are arguing.” California Governor Jerry Brown on Sunday said Cruz’s position on climate change makes him “absolutely unfit” to become president. 

The real bottom line here is I don’t think Cruz is running for the presidential nomination next year. He’s running perhaps for the number two spot on the ticket. He’s running to set the stage for a real run for the nomination in 2012 when he’ll only be 50 years old.

Or Ted Cruz is running because running is what Ted Cruz does. Ted Cruz is the running man.