Michael Madigan’s indictment: How he pushed for allies to get ComEd jobs and his own daughter’s legislation was killed.
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
SPRINGFIELD — Nearly four years ago, legislation that aimed to help low-income electricity customers was making its way to the floor of an Illinois House chamber tightly controlled by its longtime speaker, Michael Madigan.
The bill’s main advocate: Madigan’s daughter, then-Attorney General Lisa Madigan. One of its primary opponents: Commonwealth Edison, the state’s largest electric utility.
By the time the Illinois General Assembly’s spring session was over, ComEd won — because, according to federal prosecutors, Michael Madigan paved the way.
In what may be one of the most intriguing chapters of the federal indictment filed earlier this month against ex-Speaker Madigan, prosecutors alleged he greenlighted efforts to kill his own daughter’s legislation as he pressed ComEd to give jobs to two political allies, including a coveted position on the utility’s board of directors.
The account — sprinkled throughout the 106-page, 22-count bribery and racketeering indictment — not only alleges Michael Madigan corruptly solicited and muscled his political pals into positions at the state-regulated utility as part of a decadelong effort to enhance his power. It also details the often-upside-down world of Springfield politics, where even a member of the speaker’s family ended up on the losing side of the political ledger due to a near-secret arrangement.
Madigan has denied wrongdoing and contends prosecutors are “attempting to criminalize” legal political actions, such as job recommendations. He and co-defendant Michael McClain — a longtime Michael Madigan confidant, former Democratic lawmaker from Quincy and ComEd lobbyist — have pleaded not guilty. Madigan’s attorneys declined to comment for this story.
ComEd has admitted it arranged jobs, subcontracts, and payments to the speaker’s associates to influence and reward him for helping the utility with its legislative agenda. The giant utility has agreed to pay a $200 million fine, and federal authorities agreed to defer prosecution of a bribery count that will be dropped if the company fully cooperates.
The story behind the killing of House Bill 5626 — revealed through details in the indictment as well as numerous interviews with lawmakers and other key players who witnessed it firsthand — shows not only the political calculus Madigan employed in Springfield but also the power of private-sector patronage that evolved in an era when placing political pals into government jobs has been restricted by anti-patronage court rulings.
At the time the pro-consumer legislation was wending its way through the legislature in 2018, lawmakers and lobbyists viewed it as Lisa Madigan’s “last hurrah,” a chance for the four-term attorney general to burnish her legacy in her final year in office. She declined to comment through a spokeswoman for this story, and she has not been accused of any wrongdoing.
But the alleged behind-the-scenes maneuvers by her father to kill the bill show how his political machinations would even circumvent family lines.
It was a “pretty cold, transactional kind of politics,” longtime Illinois political analyst Kent Redfield said in describing Madigan’s alleged moves.
ComEd clout
Before Lisa Madigan had proposed the legislation in 2018, ComEd had scored a series of major legislative victories.
Years earlier, the utility had coupled its massive smart-grid project with a controversial plan tying electricity rates to how much the company spent on upgrades, which critics say generated a windfall. In 2013, lawmakers backed a trio of accounting techniques that boosted the company’s bottom line despite opposition from the Illinois Commerce Commission. And in 2016, ComEd and its parent company, Exelon, won the right to charge consumers more to save downstate nuclear plants and the thousands of jobs that went with them.
During that time, ComEd and Exelon were among the highest corporate givers over five straight election cycles, starting in 2010 through the 2018 state campaign season, pouring millions into state political campaign funds, according to an analysis of campaign contributions by Redfield.
Lisa Madigan’s goal in the spring of 2018 was twofold: She wanted to rein in alternative energy suppliers that falsely promised lower bills, and she wanted to give more financial breaks to low-income electricity users.
On the first issue, the attorney general’s office in April 2018 filed a lawsuit stating that one alternative energy supplier had charged customers at least $2.4 million more over six years than those customers would have paid had they stuck with ComEd.
“We have to make sure that, in particular, low-income residents, who are often the targets of these companies, are not lured into these fraudulent scams,” Lisa Madigan told reporters. “I’m hoping that through my lawsuit today, and with a new law in Illinois, we can put these bad companies out of business for good.”
Three days later, the House Public Utilities Committee sent a version of Lisa Madigan’s proposal to the full House on a 20-0 bipartisan vote.
But that early version of the bill, sponsored by Democratic Rep. Greg Harris of Chicago, only contained a portion of what the attorney general hoped to accomplish, according to sources familiar with the negotiations.
Her other goal — which was not in the legislation moving forward at that time — was to make it easier for more low-income customers to qualify for more flexibility in paying their bills and to do away with deposits and reconnection fees when they needed their power turned back on, sources said.
As negotiations moved forward on two tracks — one dealing with the alternative suppliers and the other with expanding eligibility for low-income customers — ComEd focused its opposition on the second issue. The utility worried expanding eligibility for low-income customers would jack up prices for other customers. Utility officials also argued ComEd already offered an array of low-income assistance.
Madigan vs. Madigan
As Attorney General Madigan negotiated with ComEd, prosecutors alleged, her father was trying to get the utility to OK two deals for his political allies: Have Juan Ochoa, former chief of the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority, named to the utility’s board of directors, and get a $5,000-a-month contract for former Chicago Ald. Michael Zalewski, 23rd.
Neither Ochoa nor Zalewski is named in the indictment, but the Tribune has identified them through sources and descriptions provided in the federal document. Neither has been charged and neither currently has any ComEd contracts or holds any positions. Attorneys for both Zalewski and Ochoa said their clients declined to comment.
While the attorney general was touting her lawsuit and legislative efforts in April 2018, the speaker was communicating through his friend McClain, who was still consulting for ComEd, and giving him permission to work to kill the bill on behalf of the utility company, according to the indictment.
Around the same time, Speaker Madigan allegedly called Ochoa to let him know that he could expect to be appointed to ComEd’s board. In addition, McClain was telling another ComEd lobbyist, John Hooker, that he was going to inform ComEd’s then-CEO, Anne Pramaggiore, that the speaker wanted Zalewski added to a small group of Madigan political associates paid by the power supplier, the indictment said.
That small group, authorities say, was being paid indirectly through the firm of Jay D. Doherty and Associates, which consulted and lobbied for ComEd. Pramaggiore, Hooker and Doherty were all charged with bribery conspiracy in November 2020. They have pleaded not guilty and asked for a bench trial.
Flurry of calls
All the alleged job-pushing and legislation-killing unfolded as the General Assembly headed into the closing weeks of its spring session, always the legislature’s busiest and most hectic time of year.
On May 2, according to the indictment, Speaker Madigan spoke to McClain, who told the speaker Pramaggiore was getting pushback on appointing Ochoa to the ComEd board. She had proposed finding Ochoa another job that would pay the same salary.
But that consolation prize did not win over Madigan.
“Yeah, Mike,” Madigan said to McClain, according to the indictment, “I would suggest that we continue to support” Ochoa.
Two weeks later, on May 16, according to the indictment, a flurry of communications occurred among Madigan, McClain and ComEd officials.
McClain called Pramaggiore and discussed how to stop Lisa Madigan’s legislation. The same day, Speaker Madigan called McClain and told him to discuss the Zalewski position with Pramaggiore and “go forward with” Ochoa’s appointment to the ComEd board.
In a call with McClain, Pramaggiore allegedly said she told Fidel Marquez, the senior ComEd vice president overseeing lobbyists, to hire Zalewski. McClain also told Pramaggiore that Madigan wanted to keep pushing for Ochoa’s appointment to the board, and she agreed to do so, prosecutors alleged.
McClain also called Marquez with another point: Zalewski should be paid $5,000 a month, the indictment alleged. McClain explained to Marquez — who later pleaded guilty to a bribery charge and agreed to cooperate with authorities — that certain people were paid indirectly through Doherty’s consulting firm by referencing their usefulness to “Madigan’s political operation,” according to the indictment.
McClain spoke again to Speaker Madigan, who often wanted to deliver good news personally.
“You can call (Zalewski) and say that they’re going to get in touch with him,” McClain allegedly told Madigan.
Madigan promptly contacted Zalewski, according to the indictment.
Just two days later, on May 18, McClain emailed Pramaggiore, Hooker and other ComEd employees to say, “a friend of ours” — which federal authorities say was a code phrase used for the speaker — had authorized McClain to “go ahead and kill it,” meaning Lisa Madigan’s legislation, according to the indictment.
The AG’s defeat
Despite the behind-the-scenes maneuvers and Speaker Madigan allegedly authorizing the bill’s kill shot, he allowed a separate bill to move forward that the attorney general’s office sought to amend with her full set of proposals and position the plan for passage.
With help from allies in organized labor bolstering ComEd’s opposition, the fuller version stalled.
Even today, ComEd said it opposed the plan “because it would have hurt customers.” The utility estimated it would have cost customers $20 million upfront to cover expenses, such as customer system modifications and training, as well as an additional $146 million annually, ComEd’s Shannon Breymaier said.
“It would have put significant restrictions on ComEd’s ability to collect utility service charges from customers who could afford to pay their bills and required costly changes to ComEd’s billing and collection systems,” Breymaier said in an email. “Those costs ultimately would have been paid by our customers, not ComEd.”
Karen Lusson, who in 2018 was assistant chief of the attorney general’s Public Utilities Bureau, called ComEd’s position “old rhetoric” that doesn’t address the utility’s obligation to serve all of its customers regardless of income level.
“Allowing customers to have longer-term payment arrangements and other protections that were in that bill would likely have decreased bad debt, not increased costs,” said Lusson, now a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center.
In 2018, with one week to go in the spring session, Harris, the bill’s main sponsor, introduced on May 24 a slimmed-down version that stripped out the provisions ComEd opposed and focused only on cracking down on alternative energy suppliers.
Harris shepherded the bill through the Executive Committee on a 7-4 Democratic party-line vote. Republicans voiced concerns about protecting consumer choice and preventing the Democratic attorney general’s office from infringing on the authority of the Illinois Commerce Commission — then under the purview of GOP Gov. Bruce Rauner. Harris declined to comment for this story, citing the federal investigation.
As lawmakers got closer to the May 31 adjournment deadline, ComEd’s position shifted from opposing the bill to being neutral about it. But the utility’s earlier opposition muddied lawmakers’ understanding, according to interviews with the Tribune.
One opponent familiar with the negotiations thought the attorney general had enough votes to pass the bill but still gauged chances of passage at only “50-50.” By the time the full House voted, the bill fell four votes short with eight Democrats voting against the legislation.
Among those eight, two were on Madigan’s leadership team, including now-former state Rep. Luis Arroyo of Chicago, who has pleaded guilty in a separate bribery-related sweepstakes gambling case.
All eight Democrats were among the 107 rank-and-file House lawmakers and legislative candidates — 64 Democrats and 43 Republicans — who received campaign contributions from ComEd, Exelon or both, according to Redfield, the political analyst.
Rep. Bob Rita, a Democrat from south suburban Blue Island, received $22,000 from the companies, more than any other rank-and-file lawmaker, according to the analysis from Redfield, a professor emeritus at the University of Illinois’ Institute of Government and Public Affairs. Rita said through a spokesman he “has no specific recollection” of the alternative energy supply legislation “or how or why he voted on it as he did.”
Rep. Larry Walsh, a Democrat from Elwood, received $18,500 in campaign contributions, one of the next highest donations to rank-and-file lawmakers. Earlier this month, Walsh said he likely voted “no” because he was concerned about unfairly going after every alternative energy retailer when the goal was to crack down on only the problematic ones.
”Speaker Madigan never, ever came to me and told me how to vote,” Walsh said.
The following year, with former Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul of Chicago serving as attorney general, lawmakers passed legislation that brought more oversight to the alternative energy suppliers.
Last year, Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s energy overhaul included some of the low-income assistance previously supported by former Attorney General Madigan, such as prohibiting utilities from collecting security deposits or charging late fees.
But the full effort to expand repayment plans, which ComEd opposed, was not included.
Chicago Tribune’s Jason Meisner contributed. Petrella and Long reported from Chicago.
Sign up for The Spin to get the top stories in politics delivered to your inbox weekday afternoons.
