What do you think it says about a candidate who loans substantial amounts of money to his or her own campaign? One argument is that it shows the willingness of the candidate to invest in himself/herself. Another argument is that it is indicative of a lack of support.
Is self-financing a good thing or a bad thing?
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
It depends, how’s that for an answer? Gov. Corzine of NJ has self-financed his entire political careeer. Not only that, it seems he is self-financing much of the NJ Democratic party. Which, when you consider who used to finance it, is a very good thing.
So it depends.
A candidate needs to raise money, either his own, or he has to be willing to ask for money. I don’t have a whole lot of use for candidates who think I should do more for them then they would do for themselves.
Self-financing is a heckuvalot better than making me help pay for a candidate’s campaign.
I see it much the same as a person starting a business. If he has the start-up money, great.
Ultimately I think it depends on your perspective. Political insiders are (I think) likely to see it as either a sign of weakness or a sign of laziness. Supporters will see it as a sign of commitment. And it’s tough to say how voters are going to feel about it on any given day of the week, but it probably depends on the candidate’s background and how they feel about the candidate in question.
I think if inkind contributions from self and loans from self amount to far greater % of actual $ contributions from others then I believe it shows a lack of support. All the general public is going to read is that a particular candidate has raised $88,000 to date, they are going to think that a lot of people are really supporting this individual. In reality, if $40,000 were inkind donations from self and $20,000 were loans from self, then only $28,000 was actually raised. I think when people are reporting on how much a candidate has raised they should break it down for the general public. It can be a bit deceiving at times