With the GOP nomination swinging full force, there’s a lot of talk going on. A whole lot of talk. And when politicians talk, they gesture elaborately, painting wildly vivid portraits of themselves and others.

But when they want to hide the significance of their actions or beliefs, they resort to colorless doublespeak — the adversary of open communication.

As a politician, would you want people to know that you received $300,000 from mortgage broker Freddie Mac, notorious for its role in our financial state? Or would this be a good time for some well-polished doublespeak?

Because according to NPR, Newt Gingrich received that amount from Freddie in 2006.

Gingrich claimed that he never lobbied — not for Freddie, not for anyone. The mortgage colossus approached him as a “historian” for “strategic advice.”

I confess I don’t know much about a historian’s livelihood, but that sounds like a truly impressive salary for one.

And even if Gingrich did not lobby Congress, I feel like we can safely assume he had some interest in Freddie’s financial well-being. After all, if they sank, Gingrich’s paychecks would sink with them.

Then Bloomberg News reported that the amount paid was closer to $1.6 or $1.8 million over an eight-year span.

Media call this hidden marshmallow a “contribution.”

As fun as singling out and picking on Gingrich is, we cannot condemn him as the sole acceptor of shady money.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Mitt Romney has raised over $30 million for his GOP campaign; Ron Paul has raised over $10 million; and President Obama has raised about $89 million.

It takes many contributions to build those numbers. But where does the money come from?

Surely some unselfish people fund politicians for unselfish reasons. But pure reasons are often in short supply.

Remember the financial crisis? Remember Goldman Sachs? Subpoenaed in June 2011 for its practice of selling bad mortgages?

The Center for Responsive Politics reports that Goldman Sachs’ affiliates have hedged bets with big donations for Obama and Romney; over $1,000,000 and over $360,000 respectively.

They call these contributions.

But let’s be real. Contribution sugar-coats the word bribe.

Campaigns are not charities. People do not contribute to campaigns without hope for a return on their investment. That is just silly.

Investors get influence, power, and reimbursement when their walking money-bag takes office. Contributors become politicians through legal bribes, enabled by doublespeak.

Doublespeak runs amok in politics: torture becomes “enhanced coercive interrogation technique;” poor becomes “economically disadvantaged;” bribe becomes “campaign contribution.”

Doublespeak makes it easy to miss what really happens in politics.

So can we please stop calling them contributions or donations or whatever pretty-sounding-and-obscure name? Next, politicians will probably call them “quantitative voluntary endowments.”

They call it a contribution, but no amount of sugar-coating can mask this turd that politicians try to hide.