W

Last Updated: December 2025

Editorial Policy

Mission

To illuminate relationships among money, power, and governance using verifiable public data.

Our Standards

  • Clear distinction between fact, analysis, and opinion
  • Reliance on primary sources (government filings, official records)
  • No assertion of criminal conduct absent official adjudication
  • No claims of intent or motive stated as fact

Source Hierarchy

We categorize sources into tiers based on their authority and reliability. This hierarchy guides how we present information and what language we use.

Tier 1 - Official Records

Government filings, court records, regulatory submissions (FEC, SEC, Congress).

Usage: May state as fact with attribution.

Tier 2 - Primary Reporting

Reputable journalism citing primary documents.

Usage: Frame as "reported by [source]"

Tier 3 - Aggregators

Derived datasets (OpenSecrets, GovTrack).

Usage: Link to underlying Tier 1 when available.

Tier 4 - Our Analysis

Computed linkages and aggregations.

Usage: Labeled as "analysis" with methodology explained.

Content Classification

We label content to help you understand what type of information you are reading:

Fact

Verifiable claim from Tier 1/2 sources.

Example: "According to FEC filings, [donor] contributed $X to [candidate] on [date]."

Analysis

Connections we draw from data. Always labeled.

Example: "This pattern may suggest..."

Opinion

Editorial judgment. Clearly marked as opinion.

Language Guidelines

Safe Phrasing We Use

  • "According to [issuer] filings dated [date]..."
  • "Public records indicate..."
  • "This analysis is based on..."
  • "Based on available data..."

Language We Avoid

  • Criminal conclusions without adjudication (illegal, bribery, corruption, fraud)
  • Mental state claims (knowingly, intended, conspired)
  • Causation claims (bought, paid off, quid pro quo)
  • Overclaiming (proves, definitely, no doubt)

No Allegation of Illegal Conduct

This site does not allege bribery, vote-buying, or any criminal offense unless explicitly stated with reference to an official adjudication, indictment, or regulatory finding.

The presentation of campaign contributions alongside voting records does not assert a quid pro quo. Correlation does not imply causation.

Brand Clarification

The domain name "WhoBoughtMyVote.com" is a rhetorical question and political expression—not a factual assertion. The company does not adopt or endorse implications from the brand name. All factual claims originate from authoritative public records.

Corrections Policy

  • Material factual errors are corrected promptly
  • Corrections are timestamped and transparent
  • We maintain a structured corrections process

Four pathways for correction requests:

  1. Factual error
  2. Source dispute
  3. Interpretation disagreement
  4. Legal matters

Independence

  • Non-commercial, non-partisan platform
  • No political affiliation
  • Same standards applied to all parties and individuals

Contact

For editorial questions or correction requests, please contact us through our contact page.