Michael Madigan was so important to ComEd’s legislative agenda in Springfield that the utility was willing to bend over backwards to make the then-powerful House speaker happy, showering his cronies with do-nothing contracts, giving special treatment to 13th Ward internship applicants, and putting a Madigan-recommended candidate on its board of directors, a federal prosecutor argued Thursday.
In continuing to lay out the government’s evidence in her closing argument to jurors, Assistant U.S. Attorney Julia Schwartz played a wiretapped recording where then-ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore told Madigan’s longtime confidant and co-defendant, Michael McClain just how valuable the speaker’s influence had been.
“You take good care of me and so does our friend, and I will do the best I can to take care of you,” Pramaggiore said in May 2018, using McClain’s euphemism for Madigan.
Schwartz highlighted the comment and asked the jury: What is the one thing that Madigan did to take “good care” of ComEd?
“Their legislation,” Schwartz said. “That’s the corrupt exchange.”
Closing arguments in Madigan’s landmark case are now in their second day, with prosecutors continuing an initial presentation that includes a PowerPoint presentation with more than 800 slides.
After a lunch break, Schwartz, who focused on bribery allegations involving ComEd and AT&T Illinois, will hand over the reins to Assistant U.S. Attorney Diane MacArthur, who will present argument involving the undercover cooperation of former Chicago Ald. Daniel Solis.
Madigan’s defense argument will likely begin Friday morning, followed by a lawyer for McClain. The jury is expected to begin deliberations next week.
Madigan, 82, a Southwest Side Democrat, and McClain, 77, a longtime lobbyist from downstate Quincy, are charged in a 23-count indictment alleging that Madigan’s vaunted state and political operations were run like a criminal enterprise to increase his power and enrich himself and his associates.
In addition to alleging bribery schemes involving ComEd and AT&T Illinois, the indictment accuses Madigan of pressuring developers to hire the speaker’s law firm and trying to win business by secretly supporting legislation to transfer state-owned land in Chinatown to the city so developers could build a high-rise.
The trial represents the apex of a long federal corruption investigation that has already resulted in convictions for several other Madigan-adjacent figures over the past few years.
But Madigan is inarguably the biggest fish.
Another focus of Schwartz’s argument Thursday was the appointment of former McPier boss Juan Ochoa to ComEd’s board, which Madigan was allegedly pushing to help him politically with Ochoa’s good friend, then-U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, a Chicago Democrat with a large Latino backing.
By helping Ochoa, a onetime political nemesis, the speaker benefitted personally by getting the support of Gutierrez, “a powerful congressman who had endorsed (Madigan)” in a recent election, Schwartz said.
Schwartz said Madigan’s testimony in his own defense that he was just asking McClain for “status” updates on the Ochoa appointment and really didn’t care what the outcome was makes no sense.
To emphasize Madigan’s level of involvement, Schwartz played a series of wiretapped calls over an eight-month period in 2018 and 2019, including one where Madigan told McClain that once the appointment became official, he’d like to call Gutierrez first.
“Gutierrez is the only reason Madigan would talk to Ochoa,” Schwartz told the jury. “He doesn’t care about Ochoa. He cares about himself.”
Schwartz said in the end, the question isn’t whether Juan Ochoa was qualified for the position, but why everyone pushed so hard to get it done.
“And the answer is clear,” Schwartz said. “Madigan wanted it. Madigan controlled ComEd’s legislation. And Juan Ochoa got the appointment…That is a bribe.”
But Schwartz said Madigan’s influence over ComEd hires went far beyond just Ochoa. She also reminded jurors of the “barrage” of emails McClain sent to ComEd officials over many years pressuring them to hire Madigan recommendations, regardless of whether they passed entrance exams or even responded to recruiters trying to reach out.
“The sheer number of requests … the fact they were often unqualified candidates and these folks had connections to Madigan, that goes to motive here,” Schwartz said, referring to Madigan’s “sense of entitlement.”
“Madigan is using ComEd as his own personal piggy bank,” Schwartz said.
One Madigan referral, Kathy Laski, struggled during job interviews yet still had been offered and declined five different jobs at ComEd, Schwartz said, but the company pushed hard anyways to find her something since she was a Madigan request.
“There is still a very strong need to bring in,” then-ComEd executive Fidel Marquez emailed a coworker, who in response pressed him to say who exactly Laski’s connection was. Marquez responded: “Laski came to us from (the) Speaker.”
In his testimony earlier this month, Schwartz noted, Madigan merely said he knew Laski from meeting her at a neighborhood block party some years before. Only on cross-examination did he note that Laski’s husband, James Laski, used to be the alderman of the 23rd Ward, part of Madigan’s Southwest Side power base.
“He kept that detail from you and that was strategic,” Schwartz told jurors. “ … there were details withheld and withheld purposefully.”
ComEd also reserved a certain number of summer internship slots for people from Madigan’s 13th Ward; McClain often pushed candidates who did not meet the company’s GPA requirements or otherwise didn’t meet normal ComEd standards, Schwartz said.
“The reason they were treated differently is because they came from Madigan’s ward,” Schwartz said. “If that sounds upside down, it’s because it was. An annual carveout for a certain number of jobs … that’s not lobbying, that’s not building goodwill, that’s a bribe.”
Schwartz also took the jury through the lone bribery conspiracy charge involving AT&T Illinois, which alleged both Madigan and McClain arranged for a consulting gig for Eddie Acevedo that funneled $22,500 to the former state representative even though he did no work for AT&T.
Schwartz said McClain first asked about getting Acevedo on the same day Madigan gave word he was willing to meet with AT&T about its legislation to end mandated landline service, which stood to save the company millions. McClain was soon assigned the bill, referred to by its acronym COLR, as a “special project” for the speaker, she said.
Schwartz also recapped testimony from several witnesses, as well as emails and wiretaps, showing that Acevedo was well-known for his boorish behavior in Springfield and that no one at AT&T thought he would bring value as a consultant.
“Eddie Acevedo was toxic,” Schwartz said. “He has a serious alcohol problem. He was known to become belligerent, he insulted Republican members, everything you did not want in a consultant, yet AT&T hired him anyway.”
Schwartz noted Acevedo “didn’t have to interview” for the position, and never submitted a resume. In fact, “nobody even talked about the terms with him until they gave him the offer,” she said.
“This was a bogus arrangement,” Schwartz said. “This was a contract that Madigan controlled. He knew that it was intended to be a bribe, as did McClain.”
jmeisner@chicagotribune.com