Peter Schorsch
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 16th 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.
4 comments
Angela
September 16, 2020 at 9:59 pm
I don’t find your column sincere. You know far too much about how campaigns work … and about how candidates on all sides take all kinds of donations from all kinds of individual and interests and that doesn’t mean they support all or even some of what the donors do in their own professions and lives. No insider actually thinks Margaret Good has a soft spot for sex predators. Not even you.
just sayin
September 17, 2020 at 8:52 am
And all candidates get criticized for who donates to their campaign, Angela. Especially when it’s an unusual amount of support from child porn advocates AND the candidate has voted in accordance with that support. You can make the argument that she’s taking a principled stance against government overreach, but you can’t claim this article has some sort of agenda, at least on the surface.
SarahF
September 18, 2020 at 4:50 pm
I would hope that everyone that reads your article would agree that all children must be protected. Let them be the fun-loving children as you mentioned. Thank you for sharing your concerns.
As far as the attorneys go who have defended people charged with a sex offense against minors, when you browse through the websites of defense attorneys, one is hard-pressed to find an attorney who does not list sex crimes as an area they will defend. Most criminal defense lawyers cover all forms of criminal defense. So if we are to stop all attorneys who have defended someone charged with a sex crime from contributing to political campaigns, then that means that defense attorneys cannot be part of the process — probably not constitutional.
Additionally, the sixth amendment of the constitution guarantees all defendants the right to an attorney — probably something that this country would not be better off changing. If you have ever been in a courtroom when a defendant turns down counsel, you will see a very upset judge. Mayhem can ensue when there is not an attorney present to help keep the court proceedings running smoothly.
Child porn, as you mentioned, is a serious problem and one that we all want stopped. The New York Times ran an article in the fall of 2019, stating that what we are doing is not stopping the problem. In fact, it has grown exponentially. The problem is more with the producers than the viewers. If there are no productions, then there will be no viewing. The producers are the ones who should be incarcerated for life, but it costs law enforcement too much money to go after them, so they pick the low hanging fruit — viewers. The problem is, though, that what law enforcement is doing is accomplishing nothing. By the way, on a side note, research shows that viewing child pornography does not make a person more likely to touch a child. And those caught viewing have a recidivism rate (committing another sex crime) of 2% to 3%.
Mr. Schorsch, you are right about what is happening to the morals in this country with shows such as Cuties. I watch TV shows and movies made back in the 90’s and see things that would put you in prison and on the sex offense registry today. We live in a very mixed up country.
All of this is only going to get worse unless we move away from so much money spent on incarceration and long sentences, and start using some of this money instead on education and prevention. So much could be done to prevent many of these crimes, but no one wants to talk about changing the way we do things that are not working. Education is the key to prevention. Preventive programs should be offered in schools, colleges, workplaces, and other public venues to stop the cycle of abuse, raise awareness of the consequences, identify support resources, and ultimately restore families.
All common sense has left the leaders of this country. According to the California Sex Offender Management Board, this country spends anywhere from 10 to 40 billions dollars per year to enforce a registry when research shows that 90% of FUTURE sex crimes will be committed by people NOT on the registry. Think of what could be done if some of this money instead went toward education and prevention using research-based policies.
Mr. Schorsch, I hope that the day comes when after doing further research, you are able to write an article on the best policies that work in decreasing sex crimes. Check out Jill Levenson, Emily Horowitz, Karl Hanson, Lisa Anne Zilney, to name just a few.
Concerned
September 18, 2020 at 6:08 pm
This article is both eye-opening and misleading. There are no “child porn advocates.” And there are certainly no “attorneys who defend child porn.” That’s like saying that an attorney who represents a murder suspect “defends murder.” No, they are defending the suspect as per the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. ANYBODY accused of such an awful thing is going to need a lawyer.
Comments are closed.