Michael Madigan corruption trial nears conclusion after months of drama

After more than three months, dozens of witnesses and hundreds of audio recordings, the fate of former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan will soon be in the hands of a jury.

Closing arguments are underway in the trial of Madigan and his former long-time confidant Mike McClain in a corruption trial that is the culmination of a years-long investigation into the way lobbying and political influence is undertaken in Springfield.

The 23-count federal indictment charges both men with racketeering, conspiracy, bribery and wire fraud, with Madigan facing an additional charge of extortion.

The prosecution is expected to finish summing up their case on Thursday. In all, trial observers believe there could be three days of summations and rebuttals before deliberations in the case begin.

At this point, it appears that the case will go into the jury’s hands on Monday, but that won’t be made official until both sides have had their final opportunities to sum up their arguments.

Madigan is accused of using the influence of his position as Illinois’ most powerful political figure to enrich himself and others, but he has strenuously defended himself, both through his legal team and through his own testimony, which took the political world by surprise earlier this month.

Both Madigan and McClain pleaded not guilty in the case.  

In a 23-count federal indictment, they are charged with racketeering conspiracy, bribery and wire fraud. Madigan faces an additional charge of extortion.

 As attorneys make their final arguments to the jury, former federal prosecutor Patrick Collins says the prosecution’s case is a difficult one to make, given all of the different pieces of evidence they’ve had to present as a cohesive argument against Madigan and McClain.

“It’s not a slam dunk. The rules of the game have changed when it comes to bribery,” he said. “There has to be a quid pro quo. There has to be a really right nexus.”

 To that end, assistant U.S. Attorney Julia Schwartz told the jury Wednesday that both men conspired to enhance Madigan’s power, while lining their own pockets in the process.

“Ladies and gentlemen, legislation should not be bought,” she said in court. “But that is what was happening here. They knew it, because they set it up that way.”

Prosecutors accused Madigan of using ComEd as his private piggy bank and a place to park people loyal to him.

“Power and profit: that is what drove Madigan, with the help of McClain, to break the law time and time again,” she said.

 Prosecutors ultimately entered more than 150 tapes, wiretaps and transcripts into evidence during the trial, alleging that Madigan traded jobs and favors in exchange for favorable votes in the House.

The investigation into Madigan also targeted numerous other lobbyists and officials, with multiple convictions and prison sentences handed out in those cases.

The biggest case among those was the one against the so-called “ComEd Four.” The group included McClain, along with former ComEd CEO Anne Pragmaggiore, former ComEd lobbyist John Hooker and former City Club President Jay Doherty, all of whom were convicted in a separate trial in May 2023. All four were convicted of participating in a criminal conspiracy, along with multiple counts of bribery and other felonies.

The prosecution relied heavily on recordings of phone calls between Madigan and McClain, some of which involved former Chicago Ald. Danny Solis, who secretly recorded the calls in exchange for a deferred prosecution agreement.

Solis testified during the trial, alleging that Madigan called him to ask about a development in his ward while Solis was on the Chicago City Council. Solis alleged Madigan wanted an introduction to a developer in order to solicit business for his private law firm.

Defense attorneys pushed back in cross-examination of Solis, with the former alderman admitting he did not receive any financial offers during conversations about the introductions.

Former 13^th ward precinct captain Ed Moody also testified, alleging he was paid more than $350,000 for consulting contracts. He then performed political work for Madigan as part of the deal he laid out to the jury.

Former Illinois State Rep. Eddie Acevedo testified that he was one of five Madigan allies paid $120,000 to curry favor with the speaker, and to get legislation passed that was favorable to ComEd.

Acevedo was not charged for the payment he received, but did serve a prison sentence for tax evasion, according to prosecutors.

Rep. Nikki Budzinski, who now represents Illinois’ 13^th district in Congress, testified that she was familiar with recommendations of nominees forwarded by Madigan’s office to Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker that were known as “Sphinx lists.” She testified that she felt it important to be responsive to the recommendations, but that she didn’t feel it necessary to act upon them.

As Madigan’s defense laid out their case, the former speaker stunned political and legal observers by taking the stand in his own defense, an uncommon sight in corruption trials. The move allowed Madigan to make his case to the jury, but also allowed the prosecution to cross-examine him to try to undermine that testimony.

Madigan admitted during his testimony that he had asked McClain for help in finding employment for “as many as 10-to-20 people,” including Acevedo, but denied he had made any sort of deal to make that happen.

“The answer would be no,” Madigan told attorneys.

Madigan told defense attorneys he knew his relationship with McClain was complex, and that he recognized what McClain was doing as cultivating relationships with public officials.

Defense attorneys painted Madigan’s actions as those of a dedicated public servant who worked hard and who tried to use his position of power to help as many people as he could.

Madigan was grilled aggressively by the prosecution in the case, who asked him about work done by political appointees and the way the former speaker utilized the patronage system, which was still accepted in the world of Chicago politics during his tenure.

A recording with McClain in 2019 revealed that he was angry with appointee Frank Olivo, who was apparently doing no work for ComEd.

“Some of these guys have made out like bandits, Mike,” Madigan was heard saying.

Madigan said he was “referring to lobbyists around the Capitol building in Springfield who generally worked less than six months out of the year and generally had a high level of compensation” in regards to the comments.

After Madigan finished his testimony, his long-time real estate law partner Bud Getzendanner took the stand, guiding the jury through what he said it took for the firm to take on new clients, emphasizing that anyone who lobbied the state or had land transfer business with the state would be refused by the firm.

Heather Wier Vaught, attorney for Madigan’s political action committee, also testified about the former speaker. Vaught was asked about Madigan’s relationship with former Gov. Bruce Rauner, describing a lack of contact that resulted from a “political war” between the tow leaders.

She also testified that Madigan instructed her to treat McClain as a lobbyist during negotiations surrounding ComEd’s proposed Future Energy Jobs Act.

The defense rested its case last week, paving the way for final arguments to be made in the trial.