10/2    Hey, everyone who was calling Bustamante and Davis "oily" should
        check this out:
        http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/6913655.htm
        \_ He's spending his own money.  The twist is he just wants to get it
           back afterwards.  This is a "rich person's advantage" more than
           a loophole.  Post again when you want to have laws that eliminate
           the advantage that people with money have.
           \_ Guess you didn't see the part about the law he was violating?
              \_ Do you understand what "loophole" means?  Irrespective of
                 the implicit bias that goes along with the reporter saying it
                 was one.
                 \_ Mmm mmm, and dodging the spirit of a law through a loophole
                    is ethical how?  Oh wait, I get it, this is part of that
                    whole "Republicans can do no wrong, Democrats can do no
                    right thing."
                    \_ First of all, "loophole" means it wasn't illegal.
                       Second, it's the reporter's, the Berkeley attorney's,
                       and your opinion that the spirit of the law is being
                       broken.  I don't have the same opinion.
                       \_ Right, because you're a republican, see above.
                          \_ Actually, I'm a Democrat.  I think the article
                             is weak, and you need to throw something that
                             sticks.  Like Arnold sexually assaulting women
                             or Wilson's CIA wife being outed or Rush
                             making a stupid statement as an NFL commentator.
                       \_ Wrong. Loopholes are following the word of the law
                          while avoiding the intent of the law. If Bustamante
                          were rich, he could "loan" himself millions and then
                          the casinos could cover them after the election.
                          \_ ^Wrong^Right.  Otherwise the rest of what
                             you said is accurate.
                             \_ Yeah, I was smoking one of my 4 joints.
                                \_ Did you at least share with the anecdotal
                                   cop?
                       \_ ``Wealthy candidates can loan their campaigns more
                            than $100,000, then have special interests repay
                            their loans. Proposition 34 closes this loophole,''
                           That's what the ballot initative said.  That's what
                           voters voted for.  But I guess your opinion is
                           that Arnold is not acting in a contrary fashion to
                           what is described above.  -nivra
                           \_ The only problem is, why does the reporter
                              call it a loophole then?  It would certainly
                              have more impact if the headline said,
                              "Arnold violates campaign finance law ..."
                              \_ Perhaps he (or his editor) feels that's better
                                 left for the court to decide.  The lawyer
                                 quoted states clearly that he believes it's
                                 against the "letter and spirit of the law",
                                 and thus is suing. --scotsman
                              \_ Did no one read the damn article? Because the
                                 FPPC ruled ~1 yr ago that personal loans
                                 received by the candidate from a bank
                                 >100,000 would be allowed only if the bank
                                 is doing this during its normal course of
                                 business.  I don't know why the FPPC ruled
                                 this way, but it certainly goes against the
                                 way the intent of the law as it was phrased
                                 to the voters on the ballot.  -nivra
                       \_ Because Arnie is doing the same thing that Bustamante
                          was doing, but Arnie gets away with it because he's
                          rich. That's literally how self-loaning works.
                          Bustamante isn't worth $4M but Arnie is. So he makes
                          the loan, and after the election, someone else pays
                          for it. Voters get the details later. Bustamante had
                          to report whose covering the loan for him before the
                          election. Hell, the Indian casinos may be covering
                          Arnie's action too. Loophole...