From sex dolls to profit: Margaret Good donors include child porn defenders

Margaret Good

Democrat congressional candidate Margaret Good has accepted thousands of dollars from lawyers who specifically specialize in defending child pornographers, according to her campaign finance disclosures.

Defense lawyers are an important part of the criminal justice system and, sometimes, they have to defend the seemingly indefensible. However, Good’s acceptance of donations from donors who openly flout beating child exploitation laws is particularly troubling considering not only her curious no-vote on a childlike sex doll ban, but the donors’ extensive records of defending heinous crimes.

One lawyer who contributed multiple times to Good’s campaign has labeled police the “true predators” and alerted prospective clients on avoiding specific websites monitored by law enforcement for child sex crimes.

Good made national headlines last month when this publication revealed that she was the only lawmaker in the Florida legislature to vote against a bill to ban lifelike sex dolls resembling children — a product purchased by pedophiles for sexual gratification. Good, who later claimed the vote was an accident, was subsequently lambasted by child advocates who not only denounced her vote but openly questioned the sincerity of her explanation.

The list of contributors to Good’s congressional campaign includes a husband and wife from a Sarasota law firm who defended a person found guilty of 68 counts of child porn possession with intent to distribute. The same firm also defended individuals accused of sexual battery against a child under the age of 12, impregnating a child under the age of 16, and fondling a child under the age of 12, according to court records. In total, the couple has donated to Good four times over the past 14 months totaling $3,250.

Another contributor to Good’s campaign is a criminal defense lawyer who boasts on his website that he lessened the prison sentence of a man accused of traveling to meet a minor and solicitation of a minor in Sarasota County.

But it is the multiple contributions from a self-described “child pornography defense attorney” that is likely to raise the most alarm bells.

Good has accepted multiple campaign donations from a Sarasota attorney who operates a blog where he openly criticizes the state attorney for targeting kiddie porn offenders and accuses police of being the “true predators.” He also warns people to avoid being placed on a registered sex offender list by alerting them to what websites police are most likely to monitor.

In a 2015 blog post, the attorney defends those of possessing child pornography by using the same logic used by opponents to the child sex doll ban sponsored by Florida Sen. Lauren Book and signed into law last year.

“Some people assume that if a person possesses child porn, they go on to molest children,” he wrote. “Viewing pictures of minors does not mean that a person molests minors.”

While there are many in Florida and across the nation who fight against the scourge that is child sex crimes, it’s an issue that often goes overlooked.

Worse, it’s an issue almost glorified in pop culture.

Think back to the 90s when the cult classic “Clueless” romanticized a relationship between a 20-something college student and a barely old enough to drive teenager.

It has not changed with the times. It’s gotten worse. I’m looking at you, Netflix, with your horrendous and profit-driven support for the film “Cuties.”

That movie is not your typical coming of age drama, meant to empower young girls to become fearless professionals. It’s a gross exploitation of their burgeoning sexuality that serves, whether intentionally or not, to sexualize young girls.

Look at the tragedy that befell JonBenét Ramsey after her parents dolled up a six year old girl, likening her to a much more mature, adult-like woman.

Hell, even Honey Boo Boo was sexualized.

This is a genuine problem in our country and one not to be swept under the rug, explained away or ignored. As the father of a young girl, it plagues my mind to think there are people out there who would see her not as the fun-loving little girl she is, but as a sexual object to be claimed.

Good’s changed vote raised numerous red-flags. Her explanation for it, that it was made in error, was suspect, but provided at least some cover.

These donations appear to show her vote resonated with those who defend the indefensible. They add further suspicion to what was already a major stain on her campaign.

Good, a trial lawyer at Eastmoore, Crauwels & Dubose, did not return requests for comment.

She is running against Congressman Vern Buchanan in Florida’s 16^th congressional district.

If Good truly supports protecting children from predators, she should denounced support and return contributions from anyone who makes their living defending disgusting predators.