Michael Madigan once controlled much of Illinois politics. Now the former speaker of the House of Representatives is on trial

CHICAGO— Michael Madigan, once hailed as the longest-serving lawmaker in American history, will enter a federal courtroom this week charged with using his enormous influence to run a “criminal enterprise” to amass even more wealth and power.

The former speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives is facing charges in a multimillion-dollar extortion and bribery scheme that also involved the state’s largest utility, ComEd.

From wiretapped calls to videotaped meetings, much evidence has been previewed in open court. A sweeping investigation into public corruption has already led to convictions of lawmakers and Madigan’s former chief of staff.

But starting Tuesday, as potential jurors report to court for the first time, the spotlight will turn to the Chicago Democrat once considered the most powerful force in Illinois politics.

“This is the top of the mountain, the very highest peak,” said former federal prosecutor Phil Turner.

Here’s a closer look at the case:

Madigan, a speaker for more than three decades, is charged in a 23-count indictment with conspiracy to commit racketeering, use of interstate facilities to commit bribery, wire fraud and attempted racketeering.

Federal prosecutors accuse him of exploiting not only his role as speaker but also other positions of power, including chairmanship of the Illinois Democratic Party. He is also accused of profiting from private legal work that was illegally referred to his law firm. Madigan’s mission was to “strengthen his political power and financial well-being while generating income for his political allies and associates.”

For example, he allegedly used his influence to pass legislation in favor of the electric utility ComEd. In return, ComEd offered bribes, jobs and contracts to Madigan loyalists.

In addition to Madigan, long-time confidant Michael McClain (76), who has already been found guilty in a separate, related case, is also on trial. Last year, federal jurors convicted McClain and three others in the bribery conspiracy involving ComEd.

Madigan, 82, has “strongly” denied wrongdoing.

“I have never been involved in criminal activity,” he said in 2022 when the charges were announced.

The trial represents a stunning political downfall for the leader whose tenure spanned the imprisonment of three governors.

“There was always a reputation that this was a person who was untouchable,” said Turner, who is not involved in the case.

Madigan, the son of a Chicago county commissioner, was first elected to the Legislature in 1970. He served as 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 supporters, many of whom were on the government payroll, reliably showed up to canvass neighborhoods and register voters.

He set much of Illinois’ political agenda and decided which bills should be voted on. He controlled several political funds and was thus able to select candidates to run for office. Madigan also oversaw the creation of political maps and ensured boundaries favorable to Democrats.

“It’s becoming a political party,” said Kent Redfield, professor emeritus at the University of Illinois at Springfield. “It’s going to be the Mike Madigan party.”

At the same time, he kept a low profile and preferred working behind the scenes. Madigan wasn’t the type to attend parades or ribbon cuttings. As is well known, he did not have a cell phone.

His leadership was a return to the style of machine politics for which Illinois was famous, when patronage and party connections controlled hiring and construction projects.

After an investigation into sexual harassment allegations against his employees and as details of the federal corruption investigation emerged in late 2019, support for him began to wane.

As of 2021, Madigan was unable to garner the votes necessary to remain speaker. He resigned from his position as parliamentarian and party leader.

“He was by far the most powerful politician in Illinois,” said Constance Mixon, a professor at Elmhurst University. “As governors came and went, as Chicago mayors came and went, Madigan was the one constant in Illinois politics.”

More than 1,000 jury summonses were sent out by mail for the jury pool, which was reduced to about 180 people.

Defense attorneys expect challenges because of Madigan’s notoriety. Another hurdle is the great distrust of politicians in Illinois.

“I don’t know if anyone hasn’t heard of Michael Madigan,” said Gal Pissetzky, a defense attorney not connected to the case. “It will be a very difficult jury selection.”

The trial was delayed for six months as the Supreme Court considered a bribery law that was at the heart of the trial. In June, the state Supreme Court overturned a former Indiana mayor’s bribery conviction, finding that the law criminalizes bribes given before an official act, but not rewards or “gratifications” given afterward.

Madigan’s lawyers sought to dismiss many of the charges against Madigan, arguing that the verdict “completely weakens the case against him, constitutionally and otherwise.”

But U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey rejected the attempt last week along with a request to try McClain separately, clearing the way for jury selection in earnest on Wednesday.

The testimony is expected to last three months. Experts believe the government has a strong case. Defense attorneys must counter extensive evidence, including wiretaps against Madigan and others.

Madigan’s lawyers are seeking to have longer versions of the conversations played, saying they lack context in the excerpts prosecutors want to play.

“The defense has to fight,” Pissetzky said. “It’s very difficult to cross-examine a recording.”

The timing means the proceedings could extend well beyond the November election and into 2025.

Although Madigan is no longer in office, the case could have an impact on the public’s perception of politicians.

“Most lawmakers are not corrupt, but when we get these high-profile cases, it further undermines trust,” Mixon said. “Citizens trust their government less and less and are becoming more and more cynical and disinterested.”