If something is bought does that also imply that it’s been paid for in some way, either with money or the exchange of some other material good? I only ask because I hear the “bought and paid for” formulation from time to time and it’s hard to understand why anyone would waste their breath saying something was paid for after already stating that it was bought. We see this language on the right a lot, and I think they intend it to be damning. Pundits will say so-and-so bought and paid for some seemingly innocuous thing, but the weight of the formulation somehow makes it more damning than it really is. It’s the kind of over-stressing of a particular point that appeals to people in the most minor of ways in isolation, but is illustrative of the way language is used in repetition to develop more widespread negative opinions of a person or thing. It’s a form of torture by a million little cuts. Each time the formulation is stated it becomes more ominous and nefarious. The formulation works perfectly with less discerning audiences. The redundant language becomes a thing unto itself. A mini-slogan that can be repeated often with little care for the underlying facts and nuance related to the charge.