“Power and profit,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Julia Schwartz said Wednesday afternoon as she started her address to the jury on behalf of the government. “Michael Madigan and Michael McClain conspired to preserve Madigan’s power and line his pockets.”

Schwartz said Madigan, who pleaded not guilty to 23 corruption-related charges, was the most powerful politician in the state of Illinois and controlled legislation in state government. As chairman of the Democratic Party of Illinois, “Madigan controlled the campaign financing of politicians across the state,” Schwartz said.

Madigan, D-Chicago, was speaker of the Illinois House for all but two years from 1983 to 2021. He chaired the state Democratic Party for 23 years.

McClain, D-Quincy, was a longtime lobbyist who previously served as a state representative from 1973 to 1982.

Former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan and codefendant Michael McClain separately enter the federal court building in Chicago Wednesday, Jan. 22, 2025, for what’s expected to be the beginning of closing arguments in their corruption trial.Jim Talamonti | The Center Square

“Legislation should not be bought, but that’s what was happening here,” Schwartz said.

“Madigan abused his public office and [Chicago] Alderman Daniel Solis’ public office to get business for his private law firm,” she added.

Schwartz said, along with her colleague Diane MacArthur, she would explain how Madigan and McClain broke the law.

Schwartz listed episodes of what she called “racketeering activity” on a screen in the courtroom: ComEd, a Chinatown Chicago parking lot, the Union West development in Chicago and AT&T.

Madigan used ComEd as his “personal piggy bank,” Schwartz said, adding that Counts 2-7 of the indictment related to ComEd were charges against Madigan alone.

Schwartz said that the former speaker acted corruptly in bribery deals with subcontractors, the Reyes Kurson law firm contract, a ComEd board seat for Juan Ochoa, ComEd’s intern program and other hires.

“These subcontractors did virtually no work. They were ghosts. This was a sham,” Schwartz said.

Schwartz said that ComEd complied with Madigan’s request to hire former Chicago Alderman Mike Zalewski in one day.

“This is a public official making a job offer on behalf of ComEd,” Schwartz said after playing several wiretapped phone calls. “These are not disinterested job recommendations.”

Schwartz said Zalewski made $45,000 from ComEd through contractor Jay Doherty in 2018 and 2019.

“He didn’t do a lick of work for ComEd,” Schwartz said.

Schwartz detailed how former state Rep. Eddie Acevedo, D-Chicago, and Madigan campaign worker Ed Moody did little to no work for ComEd and how ComEd executive Fidel Marquez asked for McClain’s permission to let Acevedo go.

“It’s a bribe,” Schwartz said, regarding the payments to Moody. “A bribe connected to legislation.”

Schwartz reminded jurors that Moody testified, “If I leave my politics … I’m going to lose the contract.”

According to Schwartz, ComEd paid Moody $359,000 through contractors for little work from 2012 to 2019. She said another of Madigan’s precinct captains, Ray Nice, made $415,000 from ComEd during the same period and former 13th Ward Alderman Frank Olivo made $368,000 from 2011-2019.

All told, Schwartz said, ComEd paid $1.3 million through contractors to Madigan allies for little or no work.

Schwartz replayed an interview Madigan did in 2009 about political patronage and people who came to his ward office looking for work.

“We can put you in a job, but you’re going to work for the Democratic Party,” Madigan said in the interview.

In a recording on July 2, 2018, Madigan brought up using contractor Jay Doherty to pay the wife of state Rep. Jaime Andrade, D-Chicago, who Madigan said “needs money.”

Doherty, McClain and two others were convicted of multiple corruption charges in the related 2023 ComEd Four trial. ComEd agreed to pay $200 million in fines as part of a deferred prosecution agreement.

“Of course he knows what’s going on here,” Schwartz said, referring to Madigan.

Schwartz replayed a video of Doherty discussing the importance of keeping Madigan happy, telling Marquez he would not make changes with the payments to subcontractors.

“ComEd Four” video evidence from Feb. 13, 2019, with Fidel Marquez and Jay Doherty

“Madigan wanted to get money to his loyal soldiers. ComEd wanted to get its legislation passed,” Schwartz explained.

“This stream of benefits was corresponding to ComEd’s constant need for legislation.”

Schwartz also discussed ComEd’s falsification of records to hide payments and displayed contracts and invoices that contained false information.

“These lies made their way all the way through to the payment records,” Schwartz said.

Schwartz said Madigan knew that false documents were being prepared and offered several recordings as evidence.

In negotiating the Reyes Kurson law contract with ComEd, Schwartz said McClain “resorted to intimidation.” Schwartz displayed emails as evidence of “a cycle of pressure” by McClain.

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Collins, who is not involved in the trial, said prosecutors tend to downplay their own personalities.

“You’re there as a government to just show that the defendant is guilty, not because the prosecutor has some animus about the individual, but it’s because of the weight of the evidence,” Collins told The Center Square.

Judge John Robert Blakey began reading his final instructions to the jury on Wednesday morning. The judge told jurors they must follow the instructions even if they disagreed with them. He said it was their job and not anyone else’s to decide the facts and apply the law to those facts.

In another instruction, Blakey said the jury should consider each charge on the indictment separately and each defendant separately.

The judge took about two hours to read his instructions, which he said were complete except for “a few final instructions” before the jury starts deliberating.

Chicago attorney Sam Adam Jr. said jury instructions are important.

“The lawyers will be pointing to the instructions [about] what the law is and saying, ‘Even though you may have some circumstantial evidence here, does it show that there was a quid pro quo, that these things were done one for the other?’” Adam told The Center Square.

Adam said the law is clear in most public corruption cases.

“It’s not enough to just say, ‘I think that they were doing something and taking bribes here.’ They’re gonna have to show that it was one for the other,” Adam told The Center Square.

The judge briefly reopened the case Wednesday morning to allow prosecutors to introduce three exhibits, all of which were admitted without objection.

Before jurors entered the courtroom Wednesday, Madigan’s attorneys objected to a jury instruction regarding an inconsistent statement made by Madigan during his testimony about Ed Moody.

Jury instruction 11 read, in part, “You may consider an inconsistent statement defendant Madigan made before the trial to help you decide how believable defendant Madigan’s testimony was in court.”

Madigan attorney Dan Collins argued that Madigan’s two statements about Moody were made seven years apart and therefore not inconsistent. Blakey overruled the objection, saying the parties could argue about the inconsistency of the statements in court.

Closing arguments are scheduled to resume Thursday in United States of America vs. Michael Madigan and Michael McClain at the Everett McKinley Dirksen U.S. Courthouse in Chicago.