It's interesting to me, because it is, as I said—and I don't want to put words in your mouth—a pretty severe consequence: you cannot run until these debts are taken care of. The challenge, again, through some personal experience, is that the hope and optimism of a candidate sometimes exceed the economic realities that also face that candidate. You can be convinced; I resisted, I guarantee you that.
But the notion, particularly in general elections, of either that person not being able to run or the party having to subsume that debt...this level playing field you talked about earlier I think remains critical: access to the political environment.
I don't think it was fair. You passed over the comments about two candidates: one traditionally able to access lines of credit, loans from a financial institution, middle-aged white male, versus a young female candidate walking into the same institution or treated the same. That doesn't meet with the reality that exists within our financial institutions today. It's a hangover from days past, but it still exists.
Can we just simply wash over that piece and say that banks will be neutral on whomever walks through their front doors?