Indicted ex-Ill. House Speaker Seeks Dismissal of AT&T-Related Charges

Former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan (D) seeks dismissal of allegations in his Oct. 12 "superseding" criminal indictment that he accepted bribes from AT&T in return for enacting the company’s favored carrier of last resort (COLR) legislation under his watch, said his motion Tuesday (docket 1:22-cr-00115) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. With Madigan's influence, including on a vote to override a gubernatorial veto, the COLR legislation (HB-1811) cleared the House and later became law in the summer of 2017.

Former AT&T Illinois President Paul La Schiazza is under separate indictment for authorizing $22,500 in payments to a former House colleague of Madigan’s in return for the speaker’s shepherding the COLR legislation, which absolved AT&T of its future landline obligations in the state (see 2302160048). What the 117-page indictment doesn’t allege “is a connection between the job hires” at AT&T and the Illinois utility ComEd “and any legislative decision that Madigan made,” said his motion. The indictment also doesn’t allege “a single word spoken to or by Madigan linking these simple job recommendations to any legislative act by him,” it said.

The government’s allegations don’t state a federal crime but rather “a commonplace practice in which public officials and party leaders make job recommendations for constituents and associates to employers within their jurisdictions,” said Madigan’s motion. Those employers may accept recommendations “in an effort to curry favor with the officials in question,” it said. “But currying favor with government officials -- even those with the capacity to influence legislation of interest to the employers -- is legal.”

In contrast, “corruptly soliciting something of value in return for official action” isn't legal, said the motion. The indictment “blurs that distinction entirely, rendering its cornerstone allegations involving ComEd and AT&T deficient under the corruption statutes and constitutionally untenable,” it said. The “far-flung” indictment “impermissibly treats lawful ingratiation as illegal bribery,” it said. It also “stitches together unrelated allegations of purported misconduct into a single scheme,” it said. “The mismatch between the conduct alleged and the statutes invoked is a fatal defect that precludes this prosecution,” it said.

Count 23 of the indictment must be dismissed because “it fails to allege a quid pro quo or a link” connecting AT&T’s hiring of a former House colleague “to Madigan’s support for COLR legislation,” said the motion. It, therefore, “necessarily fails to allege that Madigan was aware of or agreed to commit a corrupt exchange” in violation of federal law, it said.

If the court determines federal corruption statutes are “ambiguous as to whether a quid pro quo or link is required,” then it should apply “the rule of lenity and construe the statute in Madigan’s favor,” said the motion. If the court alternatively determines that federal law “does not require either a quid pro quo (for bribes) or a link (for gratuities),” then it should find the statute “overly broad and unduly vague” in violation of the First and Fifth amendments, respectively, it said.