Any negative trust he receives should be removed once he catches up on payments.
I disagree with that, since this is the second time his campaign participants have had serious issues with payment. It's just not acceptable behavior, and I thought I was being generous last time by changing my negative to a neutral. This time I think he's earned a neg, regardless of what reasons or excuses he has for not paying out and not communicating. Enough is enough with this guy.
If he pays his debt, there is no reason why he should have a negative.
The threat of a negative rating is a primary reason why many honor their debts, and the potential for a negative to be removed is a reason why someone will pay a delinquent debt. If negative ratings remain after someone has honored their commitments, why would someone repay a delinquent debt, but more importantly, why would someone complain about a delinquent debt if doing so will mean the debtor will receive a prominent negative rating?
I agree that the behavior is unacceptable, but is not something that warrants a permit negative. He is compensating those who he is late paying with a bonus.