What this is
Most political coverage tells you who to be angry at. We're not interested in that. We're interested in the paper trail — who gave, who received, and what happened next. We put it in order, we cite where every piece came from, and then we get out of your way.
We don't say "in exchange for." We don't say "because of." We say this happened, and then this happened, and we hand you the documents. Sometimes the gap between those two facts is a coincidence. Sometimes it isn't. You're an adult — you can tell the difference without us nudging your elbow.
Why it's built this way
Here's the uncomfortable part, and we'd rather say it out loud than pretend it isn't true: people are pretty good at spotting corruption on the other team and pretty terrible at spotting it on their own. It feels like betrayal to admit your side does it too. So most people just don't look.
We get that. It's the same reason people stay in relationships they know are bad for them — pride, the cost of admitting it, the sheer exhaustion of having to rethink things. We're not here to yell at you about it. Think of us less like a prosecutor and more like the friend who slides the bank statement across the table and says, quietly, "I think you should see this."
That's why every case here is built the same way no matter whose name is on it. A donor is a donor. A no-bid contract is a no-bid contract. The party in the headline doesn't change how we document it, and it never will.