Ten years ago, a scandal broke in Washington D.C., as a prostitution ring was uncovered, and organized by a woman who has since been referred to by the media as the “D.C. Madam.” It ruined lives, marriages, and some careers. David Vitter, a Louisiana politician, lost his bid for governor last year because of the mere specter of the scandal.

Today, slowly, stories are trickling out about the D.C. Madam scandal from the mid-2000s, trying to place it in the spotlight of the 2016 presidential election cycle. The reason? The former Madam’s lawyer says he has phone records implicating a current candidate (but he won’t say which one) in the decade-old scandal.

The former attorney for the “D.C. Madam” has asked the United States Supreme Court to allow him to release records of Deborah Jeane Palfrey’s escort service, including customer names, addresses and Social Security numbers, because they allegedly could affect the 2016 presidential election.

In an application to the high court, filed Monday, Montgomery Blair Sibley is asking to be released from a judge’s 2007 restraining order which prohibited him from sharing Palfrey’s telephone records, during the much-publicized run-up to her federal trial for racketeering, money laundering and mail fraud.

And, if the Supreme Court won’t hear his argument, Sibley says he will release the identifying information of Palfrey’s customers.

This will, of course, have the media a aflutter because sex sells. Sibley is adamant about getting the information out there, and until he does, it’s cause for speculation as to who is most likely to have utilized the D.C. Madam’s services during the time period.

However, the story doesn’t say just how the information would affect the election, only that it could. Sibley is keeping the information very close to the chest (he sorta has to, thanks to the courts), so we don’t know if he means a current candidate directly engaged in prostitution or if someone (say, a husband on the Democratic side!) did.

It will be interesting to see if the courts allow the lawyer to release the information. If they do, we can expect a Republican name to be in the media associated with the scandal for thousands of years. If it’s a Democratic name… wait, what scandal?