The multi-month racketeering and corruption trial of former Illinois House Speaker Michael J. Madigan is nearing its climax, as federal prosecutors laid out their closing arguments, pitching a case that accuses Madigan of running a criminal enterprise during his tenure. Detailed by the Chicago Sun-Times, the allegations suggest Madigan and his associate Michael McClain conspired to trade legislative action for financial gain, a claim that stretches over a 36-year reign in Illinois politics.
With closing arguments commencing, prosecutors argue that legislation in Illinois was strategically influenced by a stream of bribes that lined the pockets of Madigan and his associates, believing "legislation should not be bought." As reported by CBS News, the former speaker faces 23 counts, including racketeering and bribery, tied to no fewer than five different schemes over an extended period which allegedly fattened the wallets of those within Madigan's political circle.
One particular focus of the prosecution's argument, as highlighted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Julia Schwartz and chronicled by the Chicago Sun-Times, was on incidents involving ComEd and AT&T Illinois, where Madigan's allies were said to have received $1.3 million through "sham" contracts and jobs, fostering a relationship with Madigan in which legislation flowed in businesses' favor. "Time and again, Madigan abused the tremendous power he wielded," Schwartz told the jury.
Madigan's defense team, hoping to sway the jury that this amounts to an overreach of the racketeering laws, presented a different view. According to the testimony Madigan delivered earlier in the month – covered by CBS News – phrases muttered, and actions taken in his capacity as speaker were not intended as implicit orders or parts of illicit arrangements but rather as recommendations and part of routine political operations.
As jurors ready themselves for deliberations expected to begin on Monday, the legal instructions they must consider are far from simple. With more than a hundred pages of guidelines to sift through, this trial presents them with a daunting task. "It's going to take a long time for the judge to read them," noted CBS News Legal Analyst Irv Miller, commenting on the complexity of the case and the disagreements that have arisen over legal definitions and instructions.
