Judge Davidson: Scruggs brief writer’s word “substitution… is not innocuous.”

In doing so, Judge Davidson tosses a nice dart at Scruggs’s lawyer, noting their selective editing of quotations. They argued that quid pro quo involves the exchange of money, and, since Judge DeLaughter didn’t get any money, Scruggs is necessarily innocent. Judge Davidson swats down as misleading their ellipses in one quote:

Petitioner twice cites Let’s Help Florida as stating: “[T]he sole Governmental interest that the Supreme court recognized as a justification for restricting [speech] was the prevention of quid corruption between a contributor and a candidate.” Pet’r’s Reply Mem. in Support of J. Pleadings [151] at 4; Pet’r’s Mem. in Support of Mot. to Vacate [126] at 29. The actual quote from Let’s Help Florida is as follows: “The sole governmental interest that the Supreme Court recognized as a justification for restricting contributions was the prevention of quid pro quo corruption between a contributor and a candidate.” 621 F.2d at 199 (emphasis added). Petitioner’s substitution ofthe word “speech” in a decision that only addresses campaign contributions is not innocuous.

NMC
12/27/11