As I’ve been telling statehouse types for a long while, lobbyists and legislators need to be paying very close attention to what’s happening in the corruption trials relating to and involving former House Speaker Michael Madigan.
For example, lots of folks rely on lawyers to help guide them through the Springfield swamp.
Then-AT&T Illinois President Paul La Schiazza told his top lobbyist Steve Selcke in 2017 that if he and other company lobbyists believed it would hurt AT&T’s Springfield efforts to publicly hire former Rep. Eddie Acevedo as a contract lobbyist, then he had “no objection” to hiring Acevedo as a consultant, which would evade public disclosure laws at the time.
La Schiazza quickly qualified his go-ahead by saying a final decision would “of course” be pending “legal approval to engage Eddie in this way.”
But while that email was part of the trial presented to the jury, and the defense heavily emphasized it in its closing arguments, the legal memo itself was not allowed into evidence.
Prosecutors strongly objected to the legal opinion’s introduction. “Such testimony risks suggesting to the jury that an expert — a lawyer — weighed in on the ultimate issue of defendant’s guilt or innocence,” the prosecutors claimed in a brief, claiming that allowing the evidence “would improperly invite the jury to give such opinions unwarranted weight.”
So, even if folks vet all their statehouse moves through attorneys, that won’t necessarily keep them from being prosecuted.
Anyway, you’ve probably heard that the feds failed to convict La Schiazza last week. The jury couldn’t reach a unanimous decision and the judge declared a mistrial. He may be tried again, but even if he isn’t, he went through a whole lot of trouble because he thought he had the legal go-ahead to do the Acevedo deal.
Selcke was billed as the “star” prosecution witness in La Schiazza’s corruption trial. But it turns out that Selcke was just as puzzled about the prosecution as La Schiazza.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Tim Chapman asked Selcke “whether he believed Eddie Acevedo’s hiring by AT&T Illinois was ‘in any way related to’ AT&T’s key legislative priority,” reported Sun-Times reporter Jon Seidel. “In my mind, no, it wasn’t,” Selcke responded. Madigan’s right-hand man Mike McClain was pushing hard for the hiring, but no evidence showed Madigan ordered it.
Pretty much the whole case revolved around the prosecution’s theory that Acevedo’s hiring was done to bribe Madigan into backing their proposal, which was for years staunchly opposed by organized labor. The bill ended a state mandate that the company offer landline service to everyone in Illinois, so unions were concerned about job losses. The AT&T language was eventually inserted into a larger bill.
The feds pointed to Acevedo’s undisclosed consulting contract as evidence of concealment of a dirty deed by La Schiazza.
But Selcke testified that the decision to make Acevedo a consultant was because of Republican legislators. “They said if AT&T hired Acevedo, some GOP members ‘would not look favorably on our major legislative initiatives,'” Selcke said, according to Seidel.
Selcke told Chapman that La Schiazza was, “One of the best bosses I’ve ever had,” Seidel reported. Selcke also testified that he didn’t see anything “inappropriate” about Acevedo’s consulting contract.
When La Schiazza’s defense attorney Jack Dodds got his turn, things looked even worse for the prosecution.
According to Seidel, Dodds asked Selcke if he thought Madigan would advance AT&T Illinois’ bill because it gave Eddie Acevedo a contract. “No, I did not feel that way or think that way.”
Selcke, Seidel wrote, testified that AT&T Illinois needed the support of labor and business to pass its bill. But, Dodds said, hiring Acevedo “wasn’t going to change that one lick, would it?” In response, Selcke said, “It wouldn’t change that need to have those types of supporters.” Left unsaid was that Madigan could often move labor’s positions on bills he truly wanted to pass by finding something else to give them.
AT&T internal emails showed that Selcke and others were eager to make sure they got “credit” from Madigan for hiring Acevedo. Dodds asked Selcke if “credit” meant “bribe.” Selcke said, “No,” and added that he didn’t think that’s what the company was doing.
The Chicago Tribune reported that the key issue in the jury room was whether La Schiazza had the “intent” to bribe Madigan. Other prosecution witnesses helped the feds make their case. But Selcke’s testimony may have been one reason why the defense decided not to present its own case.
Rich Miller also publishes Capitol Fax, a daily political newsletter, and CapitolFax.com.
Send letters to letters@suntimes.com
Get Opinions content delivered to your inbox. Sign up for our weekly newsletter here.