CHICAGO — Ex-House speaker Michael Madigan, formerly the most powerful man in Illinois politics, “conspired to enhance and preserve (his) power and line his pockets” for years, prosecutors said at the outset of marathon closing arguments in Madigan’s corruption trial.

“Time and again, Madigan abused the tremendous power he wielded,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Julia Schwartz told jurors Wednesday.

Madigan and his “right-hand man,” co-defendant Michael McClain, pressured ComEd and AT&T to give cushy jobs to Madigan allies while they had legislation pending in Springfield, Schwartz said.

“They weren’t working on behalf of the people of the state of Illinois, they were working to enhance and preserve Madigan’s power,” Schwartz said. “… Legislation should not be bought, but that’s what was happening here. And Madigan knew that because he and McClain set it up that way.”

Madigan also “sought to line his own pockets” by abusing his governmental power to get business for his private law firm, Schwartz said.

“Power and profit, that’s what drove Madigan, with the help of McClain, to break the law time and again,” Schwartz said, characterizing their actions as “corruption at the highest levels of state government.”

Schwartz then launched into a detailed rundown of the ComEd-related allegations. Among them: Madigan and McClain allegedly pushed ComEd to hire their allies as do-nothing subcontractors to the tune of $1.3 million over eight years.

During his surprising turn on the witness stand, Madigan denied knowing that the subcontractors weren’t doing work – but, Schwartz said, the evidence is clear: Not only did the speaker know about the secret subcontractor agreement from the start, he was steering the whole thing.

“We had to hire these guys because Mike Madigan came to us, it’s that simple,” McClain told ComEd insider John Hooker on a wiretapped call that Schwartz played for jurors Wednesday.

“The way they talk about this when they think no one’s listening, that’s the truth,” she said. “… It’s not as if McClain and Hooker are having some collective hallucination.”

To prove the extent of Madigan’s influence, Schwartz homed in on a series of calls from one day in May 2018 – toward the end of the spring legislative session.

“In just one short day, Madigan makes the ask – ‘get my guy hired’ – snaps his fingers, and it’s done, Schwartz said.

Over a span of hours, she noted, Madigan inquired about ComEd hiring former 23rd Ward Ald. Michael Zalewski, McClain talked about the request with top ComEd brass, they gave the OK, and Madigan said he would call Zalewski to let him know. Phone records show he called Zalewski shortly after that.

“This is a public official making a job offer on behalf of ComEd,” Schwartz said. “(Zalewski) doesn’t have a résumé submitted, hasn’t sat for an interview … and Madigan is making the offer because this is Madigan’s job. It’s a bribe.”

Madigan claimed on the stand that the subcontractor referrals were normal job recommendations that he just passed on to McClain and then more or less forgot about, Schwartz said, but “this sequence shows you that is not true. Madigan is following up, he’s making sure it gets done, and he’s making the job offer. These are not disinterested job recommendations.”

Attorneys began presenting the closing arguments Wednesday after three months, more than five dozen witnesses and an array of thorny legal scuffles. The arguments are expected to last at least through the end of the week.

First, though, U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey spent about two hours reading more than 100 pages of instructions on the law to the jury, including what prosecutors must prove on the bribery-related counts, which was the subject of a particularly contentious hearing earlier this month given new guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Among the important new instructions the jury received: Prosecutors have to prove Madigan “understood that the conspiracy involved a ‘this for that’ exchange.”

If a bribe was paid after the fact, prosecutors have to prove that the agreement was in place before the official action was taken, according to Blakey’s instructions.

That’s a far higher hurdle than what was given to the jury in 2023’s related “ComEd Four” case, where the jury was only obligated to find that the utility intended to reward Madigan, not that there was any quid pro quo exchange. That case ended with sweeping guilty verdicts on all counts.

Attorneys had been scheduled to have a longer hearing on jury instructions Tuesday afternoon, but it was rescheduled at the last moment, signaling that the legal teams found more room for agreement than they anticipated.

Blakey had previously said that arguments would last through the end of the week, however due to more delays Wednesday, that schedule seemed to be in jeopardy. Assistant U.S. Attorney Amarjeet Bhachu told the judge the prosecution’s first closing argument will stretch until possibly Thursday afternoon, leaving only a day or so for defense arguments and the prosecution’s rebuttal.

Either way, the jury was expected to get the case on Monday.

Madigan, 82, a Southwest Side Democrat, and co-defendant Michael McClain, 77, of 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, who for decades was considered the most powerful person in Illinois politics, is inarguably the biggest fish.

The prosecution featured nearly 150 wiretapped phone calls and undercover videos as well as testimony from two now-legendary FBI moles: former ComEd executive Fidel Marquez and, most memorably, ex-Ald. Daniel Solis, who began cooperating with the government after being confronted with evidence of his own salacious misdeeds.

The defense put on a dozen witnesses, including Madigan himself, who regaled the jury with tales from his strict, Southwest Side Irish Catholic upbringing and flatly denied any wrongdoing. Prosecutors, however, were able to confront him on cross-examination about his many statements on the government’s wiretaps, including one where he allegedly laughed that some of his associates had “made out like bandits.”

The landmark trial, which began with jury selection on Oct. 8, has been a fascinating dive into the inner workings of state politics as well as Madigan’s vaunted political machine.

It has also been a slog at times, with multiple interruptions for extended attorney arguments, the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays, and a day of mourning for President Jimmy Carter.

_____

©2025 Chicago Tribune. Visit chicagotribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.