Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's the case in the bill. The parties can lend money to riding associations if they choose to do so—or not—and I think they do or do not for a whole host of reasons. Has the candidate tried to raise money? Have they shown good faith?
If you're just suggesting that what works now should remain, I would agree with you, but if you're suggesting anything more than that.... I think that between the existing party structure that allows for it, as well as the very, very generous tax receipts that candidates can provide, there is an obligation here for candidates to go out and raise money themselves.
When you're able to collect $100 and return $75 to that individual, there is an obligation on the candidates themselves. I worry that we're drifting into territory that suggests the candidate has no obligation, or we're minimizing it and turning the responsibility over to others.
Could you clarify your $4,000, or whatever the figure is? How would it differ from what currently exists with the party loans and the financial opportunities that candidates have?