Political rhetoric is much like gossip; it begins with a kernel of fact and then is bootstrapped by repetition into something entirely different.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is on the receiving end of some critical media comment and political pamphleteering these days for his supposed betrayal of a pledge not to accept or seek campaign contributions. But it's something of a bad rap for California's governor.

What Schwarzenegger said in response to a question, when he surprisingly declared his candidacy for governor in August, was this: "As you know, I don't need to take money from anybody. I have plenty of money myself. I will make the decisions for the people."

That's not a promise not to take money. It's merely stating a fact, that as a very wealthy man, he could easily finance his campaign without feeling a financial pinch and therefore didn't need any outside contributions. Schwarzenegger's only specific prohibitions were that he wouldn't take money from public employee unions and casino-owning Indian tribes because he would be negotiating directly with them.

His most expansive statement came shortly after he declared his candidacy, during a news conference on economic affairs. "I have the advantage that I'm going to Sacramento without any baggage," Schwarzenegger said. "I haven't made any deals with anyone. I haven't sold out to any special interest groups. I'm not taking any money from anyone. Anyone that comes to me, I say, 'Look, I will support your cause if it is for the better for the people, but not just for you because you give me campaign contributions.' I don't want to get into that. I want to go up there with no baggage, no strings attached. I will be totally independent. And therefore, I will be able to make decisions that those guys right now up there in Sacramento will not be able to make because they already have taken money. They already have sold out. They already have done the job that makes it impossible for them to go and make decisions for the people. It is now an environment in Sacramento where the politicians to a large extent are representing the special interests rather than representing the people. What I want to do, this is why I always say I will be a governor for the people for a change, because I want to represent the people, because the only thing that counts for me is the people."

The phrase "I'm not taking any money from anyone," standing alone, could be interpreted as a pledge to refuse all contributions, but the following words make it fairly clear that he's referring to those who are seeking favors.

The record, therefore, falls far short of the ironclad pledge that critics claim he made, and therefore is allegedly violating. An equally valid interpretation of his words is that he was pledging to remain independent regardless of who contributed to his campaign - buttressed by the fact that he didn't need outsiders' money - and that those who did give should not expect special treatment.

There's nothing innately wrong with a politician accepting legal campaign contributions. The transgression against public interest occurs when the politician trades favors for contributions, or tilts in favor of contributors. And that brings us to the latest dust-up over Schwarzenegger's Feb. 24 fund-raising dinner in New York, where Wall Street financiers will be asked to contribute to the campaign for a $15 billion state bond issue the Republican governor is touting as a keystone to California's fiscal recovery.

Donations of up to $500,000 are being solicited and critics are working themselves up into a lather. Jamie Court, a Southern California consumer activist who has been trying to establish himself as a Schwarzenegger irritant, told The Bee that he considers the trip "carpetbagging" and suggested that the bankers have a vested interest in California floating more bonds.

He and other critics ignore a couple of salient facts, however - such as the federal law that would preclude financial houses with direct involvement in the bond from contributing, or the fact that Democratic state Treasurer Phil Angelides would be marketing the bonds. And, after all, contributions to the bond campaign are not contributions to Schwarzenegger's own campaign.