(The Center Square) – Former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan addressed his former friendship with codefendant Michael McClain as the two men face corruption charges in federal court.
In cross-examination with McClain defense attorney Patrick Cotter Wednesday, Madigan said he developed a friendship with McClain during their early years in the Illinois House during the 1970s. Madigan said their friendship survived until recently.
Cotter asked Madigan if McClain had been his political adviser.
“At times,” Madigan answered.
Cotter asked if McClain was “a master” of understanding House rules and how things worked in Springfield.
“Mike knew his way around, but you shouldn’t elevate him that high,” Madigan said.
Cotter asked if Madigan regularly asked McClain for help at times they were both in Springfield from 2011 to 2019.
“Some of the requests we would submit to Mr. McClain,” Madigan answered.
Cotter asked if Madigan had multiple meetings with ComEd and Exelon.
“I met with people from those companies. I don’t know if I’d say multiple,” Madigan replied.
Cotter asked Madigan if McClain was sometimes able to use space within Madigan’s offices in Springfield.
“As did others,” Madigan said.
“Did Mr. McClain earn a certain amount of trust with you?” Cotter asked.
“At the time,” Madigan said.
Cotter asked Madigan about receiving advice from McClain.
“As I did from others,” Madigan answered.
In another exchange, Cotter asked Madigan about a conversation he had with McClain about a Chinatown land transfer project falling through.
Madigan balked when Cotter suggested that McClain had expected the news.
“We all just heard the tape,” Cotter stated.
Cotter asked if McClain had any role or interest in Madigan’s private law firm.
“The answer is no,” Madigan said.
Madigan and McClain are charged with 23 counts of bribery, racketeering and official misconduct in connection with a scheme that federal prosecutors referred to as “Madigan Enterprise.”
Prosecutors allege that ComEd and AT&T Illinois gave out no-work or little-work jobs and contract work to those loyal to Madigan to get legislation passed that would benefit them in Springfield. Four ComEd executives and lobbyists were convicted last year in a related trial, and ComEd itself agreed to pay $200 million in fines as part of a deferred prosecution agreement with prosecutors.
He was speaker for all but two years between 1983 and 2021. Madigan also chaired the Democratic Party of Illinois from 1998 to 2021. He also is accused os using his position of power to steer business to his law firm.
McClain was a longtime lobbyist who previously served as a state representative in Illinois’ 48th district from 1973 to 1982.
Cotter asked Madigan if he was aware of former state Rep. Eddie Acevedo, D-Chicago, having a nine-month contract with AT&T.
“I know that today. I did not know it at the time,” Madigan said.
Madigan insisted that nobody came to him and asked for a no-show job.
Cotter asked if Madigan had taken or agreed to any official action to benefit AT&T or ComEd-supported legislation in connection with requests he made to McClain.
“No,” Madigan answered.
After Cotter finished his cross-examination, Judge John Robert Blakey dismissed the jury until Monday, when U.S. government attorneys are expected to begin their cross-examination.
With jurors out of the courtroom, attorneys discussed evidence and questioning that would be admissible in the remaining days of the trial.
Government attorney Amar Bhachu asked for the judge’s permission to play a recording from 2018 in which Madigan and McClain were laughing and talking about people “making out like bandits” and not doing any work, in contradiction with Madigan’s testimony the last two days.
Madigan attorney Dan Collins said numerous people said the recording was not related to a Madigan recommendation and was outside of what the former speaker talked about in his testimony.
Blakey said the government exhibit 0156 is admissible but left it up to defense attorneys whether they wanted it to be withheld until the government’s rebuttal case.
Bhachu also sought to introduce a 2009 interview in which Madigan discussed his use of the patronage system, with the purpose of demonstrating that Madigan did not simply distribute jobs to people who wanted work but also sought to add to his political workforce.
Defense attorneys said Madigan’s comments were taken out of context and were not relevant. Blakey said he would rule on the issue after attorneys meet and confer.
Madigan testified Wednesday morning that he met Daniel Solis in the early 1980s, when Solis worked for the United Neighborhood Organization before becoming a Chicago alderman. Madigan said he had a long history of political support for Solis.
When Collins asked about a meeting in August 2014 at Madigan’s law firm, Madigan & Getzendanner, with Solis and a Chicago Chinatown development group, Madigan said he didn’t remember how the meeting was set up.
Madigan said he reacted with surprise and concern when he heard Solis use the words, “quid pro quo” during a call on June 23, 2017. Madigan said he decided to have a face-to-face meeting with Solis to tell him that he would not be involved in a quid pro quo. When they met in person, Madigan said Solis appeared to be very apologetic.
Madigan testified that he did not want Solis to use his position as an alderman to help Madigan’s law firm to gain business from developers. He said he only used Solis to get an introduction to developers.
Madigan said it happened “quite frequently” that he would meet with developers, but then the developers would not hire his firm.
Collins asked Madigan about a call during which Solis asked Madigan about possibly obtaining a state board position. Madigan said he had “a long history of helping Mr. Solis.” Madigan said he did not connect helping Solis with getting work from developers for his firm.
Madigan said he decided not to recommend Solis for a state board position because he read that Solis was cooperating with the government’s corruption investigation.
The former speaker discussed a proposal to transfer a state-owned parcel of land in Chinatown to the city for development. Madigan said he recommended state Rep. Dan Burke, D-Chicago, to sponsor the land transfer bill because state Rep. Theresa Mah, D-Chicago, was neutral or opposed to the project.
“I had no contact with Theresa Mah,” Madigan said.
Madigan said he never asked Solis to introduce him to the Chinatown developers because he did not want to seek the business for his law firm. Madigan said his firm had a strict policy to not accept work from developers if there was substantial involvement with the state of Illinois.
Madigan said he never wanted a cell phone because he worked hard seven days a week and did not want to be bothered with work after hours or during a meal. He said he had people in his various offices who could receive emails, so he never felt the need to have an email address.
When Collins asked Madigan about gaming, the former speaker replied that, on a personal level, “I’m not fond of gambling.”
In his early years as speaker, Madigan said, he would dissuade the advancement of gaming legislation. As time passed, he proceeded to consider legislation in counties where people wanted casinos.
Madigan said state Rep. Bob Rita, D-Blue Island, asked him if he could be a point person on gaming legislation.
“And I told him, yes,” Madigan said.
St. Xavier University Professor David Parker told The Center Square that the defense team would argue that evidence introduced by prosecutors did not reflect illegal activity.
“You might say this is Madigan’s argument: this is just business as normal. This wasn’t a bribe. It wasn’t a bribe at all. They’re just going along with how things are normally done. They just don’t want to rock the boat,” Parker said.
When Collins asked the former speaker about his highest priority in politics, Madigan said it was the people who elected him. Madigan said his highest priority became statewide when he became speaker and that he had a dual role as speaker and as state representative for his district. He said he was proud to be an Illinois Democrat.
Collins closed by asking if Madigan ever traded his public office for private gain.
“No,” Madigan answered.
United States of America v. Madigan et al is scheduled to resume Monday, Jan. 13 at the Everett McKinley Dirksen U.S. Courthouse in Chicago.
