I understand the idea of getting rid of individual loans. We're trying to have that tension, as you just said, between accessibility to the political system while not allowing money to buy politics, to buy leadership races, right? Someone once said that money in politics is like rain on a sidewalk; it finds its way through the cracks.
There were some loopholes created in the last law big enough to drive a truck through, in terms of personal loans, to circumvent these limits and allow people to blow through limits that were intended to have fairness.
You've suggested the idea that if somebody has exceeded those limits on his personal loan front and hasn't paid them back—you talk about a three-year window—they should not be permitted to run again. This is a pretty strong thing for a chief electoral officer to suggest, to ban someone from running based on the idea that they've been irresponsible or negligent. It almost infers—and I know you're not inferring—that perhaps the candidate took that money knowing they couldn't pay it back. It was a way to circumvent the limits on contributions that applied to everybody else in the race, if you follow me.
It's a three-year ban or a ban on not running because of a three-year limit. That's what your suggestion is, correct?