CHICAGO – Once lauded as thelongest-serving legislative leader in American history, Michael Madigan will enter a federal courtroom this week on charges he used his vast influence to run a “criminal enterprise” to amass even more wealth and power.
The former Illinois House speaker is charged in a multimillion-dollar racketeering and bribery scheme that included the state's largest utility, ComEd.
Recommended Videos
From wiretapped calls to video-recorded meetings, much of the evidence has been previewed in open court. A sweeping investigation of public corruption has already produced convictions of legislators and Madigan’s former chief of staff.
But starting Tuesday, as potential jurors first report to court, the spotlight turns to the Chicago Democrat who was once considered the most powerful force in Illinois politics.
“This is the top of the mountain here, the very very top,” former federal prosecutor Phil Turner said.
Here is a closer look at the case:
What are the charges against Madigan?
Madigan, speaker for more than three decades, is charged in a 23-count indictment with racketeering conspiracy, using interstate facilities in aid of bribery, wire fraud and attempted extortion.
Federal prosecutors allege he exploited not only his role as speaker, but other positions of power, including Democratic Party of Illinois chair. He also is accused of benefiting from private legal work illegally steered to his law firm. Madigan’s mission was to enhance “his political power and financial well-being while also generating income for his political allies and associates.”
For instance, he allegedly used his influence to pass legislation favorable to electric utility ComEd. In return, ComEd offered kickbacks, jobs and contracts to Madigan loyalists.
Also standing trial with Madigan is longtime confidant Michael McClain, 76, who already has been found guilty in a separate, related case. Last year, federal jurors convicted McClain and three others of the bribery conspiracy involving ComEd.
Madigan, 82, has “adamantly” denied wrongdoing.
“I was never involved in any criminal activity,” he said in 2022 when the charges were announced.
Madigan's leadership was a throwback to old-school machine politics
The trial represents a stunning political fall for the leader whose tenure survived three governors landing in jail.
“The reputation was always that this is a person who is untouchable,” said Turner, who isn’t involved in the case.
The son of a Chicago precinct captain, Madigan was first elected to the Legislature in 1970. He was speaker from 1983 to 2021, except for two years when Republicans were in control.
Madigan represented areas southwest of downtown near Midway International Airport. The middle-class district was his power base, where his loyalists, many on government payrolls, reliably showed up to canvass neighborhoods and register voters.
He set much of Illinois’ political agenda, deciding which pieces of legislation would get a vote. He controlled multiple political funds, allowing him to pick candidates to run. Madigan also oversaw political mapmaking, ensuring boundaries favorable to Democrats.
“He becomes the political party,” said Kent Redfield, professor emeritus at the University of Illinois at Springfield. “It becomes the Mike Madigan Party.”
At the same time, he kept a low profile, preferring behind-the-scenes work. Madigan wasn’t one to participate in parades or ribbon cuttings. He famously didn’t have a cellphone.
His leadership was a throwback to the style of machine politics for which Illinois was famous when patronage and party connections controlled hiring and construction projects.
Support for him began to crack following an investigation of sexual harassment allegations against his staff and as details of the federal corruption investigation emerged in late 2019.
By 2021, Madigan was unable to garner the votes needed to remain speaker. He resigned his legislative post and as party chairman.
“By far, he was the most powerful politician in Illinois,” said Constance Mixon, an Elmhurst University professor. “As governors came and went, as mayors of Chicago came and went, Madigan was the one constant in Illinois politics.”
Finding a jury could be hard
More than 1,000 jury summonses were mailed for the jury pool, which has been narrowed to about 180 people.
Defense attorneys expect challenges because of Madigan’s name recognition. Another hurdle is the high mistrust of Illinois politicians.
“I don’t know if anybody hasn’t heard of Michael Madigan,” said Gal Pissetzky, a defense attorney who isn’t connected to the case. “It is going to be a very difficult jury selection.”
The trial was delayed for six months as the Supreme Court mulled a bribery law central to the trial. In June, the nation’s high court overturned the bribery conviction of a former Indiana mayor, finding the law criminalizes bribes given before an official act, not rewards or “gratuities” handed out after.
Madigan’s attorneys sought to dismiss many charges against Madigan, arguing the ruling left the case against him “fatally infirm, constitutionally and otherwise.”
But U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey rejected the attempt last week along with a motion for McClain to be tried separately, which has cleared the way for jury selection to begin in earnest on Wednesday.
Evidence includes secret recordings
Testimony is expected to last three months. Experts believe the government has a strong case. Defense attorneys will need to counter extensive evidence, including wiretaps of Madigan and others.
Madigan’s attorneys are seeking to have longer versions of the conversations played, saying context is missing from the snippets prosecutors want to play.
“The defense has to battle,” said Pissetzky. “It’s very hard to cross-examine a recording.”
The timing means proceedings could stretch long past the November election and into 2025.
Though Madigan no longer holds office, the case could impact wider public perception of politicians.
“Most legislators are not corrupt but when we get these high-profile cases, it further erodes trust,” Mixon said. “Citizens become less and less trustful of their government and more cynical and more disengaged.”