Hillary & Bill Clinton Just gave their campaign $5 Million.
Since the polls have closed Feb. 5 our supporters have given $6,495,367.

Matched and more in 1 (one) day.

If Saturday goes the way the pundits expect, it’ll soon be time for the Clintons to either a) hang up their hats or b) go really negative, giving McCain a real chance.

A loan does? Seems to me actually giving the money would indicate an actual commitment. (Yeah, I suppose there may be limit rules may forbid that, but certainly there is some way (via PAC, personal expenditures) that she could spend her own money on the campaign without the prospect of getting it back.)

“In a ham and eggs breakfast, the chicken contributes to the meal but the pig is committed to it.”

Clinton sounds like the chicken to me.

Does Clinton (or Romney or anyone) really expect to get their money back? If the campaign needs a loan, and ends up going nowhere (Hi, Mitt!), does the candidate lose their money?

What rate of interest is Clinton giving herself? Are these even really loans, or just the candidate paying directly for things the campaign would otherwise pay for?

I’d certainly be less inclined to donate if I believed my donation was going right into the candidate’s own pocket, literally, because the campaign was paying them back.

I wonder if I could “loan” money to the campaign. Would my loan be subject to limits on contributions? I mean, I’m not giving it to them, just loaning it. While the campaign works out its cash flow and waits for actual donations from others.

Then later the campaign can pay me back. Or if they default, maybe I can claim some kind of loss on my taxes (which I can’t do with my contribution, really.)

OK, the last two paragraphs were fun speculation. But, seriously, what are the terms of the “loans”?