The Center for Public Integrity (CPI) writes this week to warn us of “Outside money pouring into governors races.” The “outsiders” in question: the Republican Governors Association (RGA) and the Democratic Governors Association (DGA). I’ll give you a minute to finish rolling your eyes.

CPI refers to the RGA and DGA as “outside” spenders because their spending occurs independently of candidate campaigns. Instead of giving money to their preferred candidate, they fund their own speech supporting their preferred gubernatorial candidate or opposing other candidates. Both groups are 527s, and as a result disclose all of their significant donors and spending. Scary stuff, I know.

We at CCP prefer to call this kind of spending “independent” because that’s what it is: spending that is independent of any candidate’s campaign. But we notice that those who advocate for greater restrictions on the political process seem to prefer the “outside” term and its “you don’t belong here” connotation.

There may be contexts where distinguishing between “independent” and “outside” is academic, but in this case, using the “outside” pejorative serves to undermine readers’ understanding of what is going on. When people see a headline touting “outside money pouring into governors races,” we severely doubt they picture a group comprised of current state governors from the major political parties. Quite the opposite, the RGA and DGA are about as “inside” as it gets.

CPI’s article is a good reminder of how frequently charged rhetoric is substituted for technical language in discussions of campaign finance, and the cost is usually the reader’s understanding. Keep that in mind the next time you see headlines screaming about “outside” groups, “dark money,” “clean” elections, or “common-sense” regulations.