Corruption, the Court declared in Buckley v. Valeo, involves a quid pro quo: an officeholder doing something in office in return for money or some other favor provided by another individual or entity (for our purposes, a corporation). The problem, however, is that in principle there can be a quid—the money or favor offered by the business to the official—and a quo—the action taken by the official that benefits the business—without any clear evidence of a pro, that is, that the two are connected.[…]The “pro,” the connection between quid and quo, might take place only inside the minds of the official and businessperson concerned.[…]What this means is that we cannot use the quo itself as indirect evidence for the pro.

As a politician, he was very adept at speaking mendaciously in public.

The teenager couldn’t bear the shame of introducing his parents.

The Roman Month its several days divides By reckoning backwards, Calends, Nones, and Ides.