When a candidate accepts public funding, they agree to adhere to strict spending limits. This is true.

When a candidate uses the anticipated receipt of public funds as collateral for a loan but then chooses to opt out of the publicly financed campaign system, it is unclear as to whether their use of those anticipated public funds as collateral is a violation of law. If McCain's campaign does not repay the loan then it could be construed as benefitting from the public financing. If the campaign repays the loan and/or collaterally assigns another asset in lieu of the public funds, then I don't see a problem. Does any reasonable person honestly think this is a big issue?

Obama's commitment to use public funds in the general election was originally meant to trap McCain and discredit him as the maverick of campaign finance reform. It will be illuminating to see if Obama has the character to keep his promise and live up to his lofty rhetoric concerning clean, fair elections.