MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — A bipartisan group of 54 former state attorneys general from across the country has filed a brief with a federal appeals court asking that the conviction of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman be reversed.

Saying the prosecution and sentencing of Siegelman “raised serious First Amendment concerns,” the brief asks the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn Siegelman’s conviction.

Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy were convicted in 2006 of bribery and other charges. Prosecutors accused Siegelman of appointing Scrushy to an influential hospital regulatory board in exchange for Scrushy arranging for $500,000 in donations to Siegelman’s campaign for a statewide lottery.

One of the brief’s authors, former New York attorney general Robert Abrams, said the conviction of Siegleman, a Democrat, could have “a chilling effect” on democracy and make people afraid to make donations to political campaigns.

“It is imperative there not be inappropriate inhibitions on the right of people to participate in the political process as contributors or elected officials as decision makers,” Abrams said in an interview Saturday.

Another author of the document, former Indiana attorney general Jeffrey Modisett, said the Siegelman conviction could open the door for prosecutors to go after other elected officials and campaign donors simply for political reasons.

“We think this case is a poster child of how this sort of broad interpretation of the statute can be used for mischief,” Modisett said Saturday.

Abrams and Modisett are both Democrats, but said some of the 54 attorneys general are Republicans.

The brief echoes a concern often expressed by Siegelman and his attorneys that prosecutors did not prove an explicit agreement between Siegelman and Scrushy to swap an appointment for a campaign donation, and that the trial judge did not tell jurors that such an agreement was necessary for a conviction.

“To permit a conviction to stand in the absence of such an explicit quid pro quo would mean that a prosecutor has the power to indict and convict any politician and any donor whenever a donation was made and the politician took an action consistent with the donor’s desire, while aware of said desire,” the brief said.

Siegelman was sentenced to more than seven years in prison and served nine months, mostly at a federal prison in Louisiana, before the appeals court ordered him released on an appeal bond in March. In ordering Siegelman’s release, the appellate judges said they had found the former governor was raising substantial issues in his appeal. Scrushy was sentenced to almost seven years in prison and is being held in a federal penitentiary in Beaumont, Texas.

Chief prosecutor Louis Franklin declined to comment Saturday on the brief.

“We are going to do our fighting in the courtroom,” Franklin said.

Siegelman’s lead attorney, Vince Kilborn, said he was “delighted” that the former prosecutors filed the brief.

“They didn’t have to do it. What it tells me is that they feel strongly about Governor Siegelman’s position that his First Amendment rights were violated,” Kilborn said.

In the brief, the former attorneys general noted that U.S. District Judge William Fuller toughened Siegelman’s sentence after saying he had taken “judicial notice” of statements Siegelman had made outside court that he felt his prosecution was politically motivated.

“To the extent that one can determine the basis for the Court’s upward departure, Governor Siegelman is being punished for protected speech,” the brief said.

Abrams said the former state prosecutors were concerned about why Siegelman was given a tougher sentence.

“The U.S. government cannot punish people for questioning or criticizing the actions of federal officials,” Abrams said.

Siegelman’s attorneys filed his arguments in support of his appeal earlier this month. Scrushy is scheduled to file his appeal briefs on Monday. Franklin said prosecutors will file a response to the filings by Siegelman and Scrushy in early August. It could be the end of the year or later before the appellate judges rule on the appeals.