‘He knew exactly where to draw the line’
Madigan’s long record ample reason for his ouster
Nearly 20 years ago, House Speaker MichaelMadigan pulled off one of his greatest political feats. He squeezed every resource in his vast political network to help elect his daughter attorney general.
Madigan directed state employees whoworked for him to join her campaign apparatus, fromsecretaries to legislative aides to policy analysts. He pressured his friends in organized labor to endorse her. He set up an old-fashioned phone tree, asking his allies to supply him with guest lists fromtheir weddings, Christmas card lists, church and volunteer groups, names, addresses, phone numbers. Hemademany, many personal calls on her behalf as she faced tough opposition in the primary and general elections.
Froma Tribune story on Madigan’s tactics at the time:
“The pressure so many of us have gotten is unbelievable,” said the longtime leader of one advocacy group. “It’s more than unbelievable. It’s disgusting. … (The speaker) is able to mess with your candidates. He can mess with your bills. He can do it in such a way that you wouldn’t even know. He doesn’t have the power that he does by being a wimp.”
Some labor leaders said they received implied threats that long-sought legislation would wither if they didn’t back Lisa Madigan.
“He knew exactlywhere to draw the line,” one union leader said of his conversation with Madigan, which took place nearly a year ago. “I’m not stupid. I know exactlywhat he meant.” After that endorsement was secured, legislation sought by the union was called for a House vote and passed.
LisaMadiganwon that attorney general election andwent on to serve threemore terms.
Madigan on the ropes
That union leader’s summation ofMadigan— the kingpin who delivers his brute-force directives with subtlety— resonates again in theComEdscandal that swirls around the speaker. Federal prosecutors have alleged an illegal, widespread favors scheme to win support for the utility company’s legislative agenda. Madigan is at the center of it because the allegations portray a company and its lobbyistsworking aggressively to please him, for example by funneling money and donothing jobs to his loyalists.
What other companies or special interest groups that needed help fromthe state legislature felt pressured to please the kingpin first? To hire his favored consultants, law firms and friends?
Madigan has not been accused of wrongdoing, but for the first time since Republicans won a brief two-year Illinois House majority in 1994, Madigan’s position, influence and career are in jeopardy. Nineteen House Democrats have said they will not vote to reelect him speaker when the General Assembly convenes in January.
They are: MauriceWest of Rockford, Kelly Cassidy of Chicago, Stephanie Kifowit of Oswego, Lindsey LaPointe of Chicago, Yoni Pizer of Chicago, Anne Stava-Murray of Naperville, Jennifer GongGershowitz of Glenview, Bob Morgan of Deerfield, KathleenWillis ofAddison, Will Guzzardi of Chicago, Terra CostaHoward of Lombard,
Deb Conroy of Elmhurst,
Margaret Croke of Chicago,
Eva-Dina Delgado of Chicago,
Daniel Didech of Buffalo Grove, RobynGabel of Evanston, AnnaMoeller of Elgin,
AnnWilliams of Chicago and SamYingling of Grayslake.
Madigan says he’s staying in the race for the speakership andwon’t step downas Democratic Party chairman. Only a few in political circles are suggesting he also give up his state rep seat, representing parts of Chicago’s Southwest Side.
The ComEd scandal just might be the agent of change— finally— to oust the nation’s longest-serving speaker fromat least one of those roles. Yet it hardly is the first time questionable transactions involving Madigan have come to light. And his overall governance record, assessed in the context of Illinois’ failing fiscal health, is abysmal. If Springfield lawmakers had stronger backbones, hewould have been pushed aside years ago when it became apparent his control was costing the state its reputation, its financial footing and harming its taxpayers. For Madigan, it has always been about clout, power and success. His own.
The scandal pile
Over many years, Tribune investigations documented howMadigan and other Springfield politicians routinely offered clouted families free college tuition and a pipeline to theUniversity of Illinois. Madigan rewarded his campaign donors and relatives of other public officials by running interference to get them admitted to theU. of I. The flagship state school depends onMadigan and lawmakers for its annual budget allocation. So of course, university officials always scrambled to please him.
JohnHooker, the former ComEd lobbyist nowindicted in the ongoing corruption case, had family memberswhowere recipients of the program, dating back to 1999 at a time he was thewell-paid utility company’s top lobbyist in Springfield. Former ChicagoAld. FrankOlivo, also linked to the ComEd scheme, received favorable treatment for a relative under the program, which gave the kids of political donors, lobbyists and others with clout an advantage over students with better scores— but no inside track.
The scandal eventually promptedUniversity of Illinois President B. Joseph White and six trustees to step down, and lawmakers voted to end the tuitionwaiver program.
Therewere no repercussions forMadigan or other elected officials who leveraged their influence to the benefit of favored constituents, donors and political organizations.
The ComEd scandal also is notMadigan’s first brush with the feds. Federal prosecutors began looking intoMadigan’s and other legislative leaders’ use of taxpayer-funded bonuses to staff members years ago. Madigan gave hisworkers taxpayer-funded “bonuses” of more than $424,000 at a time the state’s budget could not be balanced (of course) andMedicaid and other programs for the poorwere being scaled back. The moneywas believed to be reward for campaignwork— a potentially illegal overlap of state resources and political campaigns— butMadiganwas never charged.
Madigan and patronage
TheTribune in 2014 traced more than 400 current and retired government employees who had strong ties toMadigan and found “repeated instances in whichMadigan took personal action to get them jobs, promotions or raises.” The attention he gave to some of them was directly linked to their loyalty to his political organization, another questionable overlap of state and campaignrelated resources.
FromthatTribune investigation: “One precinct captain went frombeing a city truck driver to overseeing hundreds of employees in the Cook County sheriff’s office in less than three years. Another political soldier got amanagement positionwith the county despite a federal conviction as a ghost payroller. And a former top vote-getter forMadigan who rose fromstreetlight repair worker for the city to theNo. 2 spot in theTransportation Department is nowat the center of the $2 million federal bribery investigation into Chicago’s red-light camera program.”
More recently, Madigan— amazingly— survived sexual harassment and#MeToo scandals within his political and governmental operations by claiming ignorance. This, from the state’s most powerful politician knownfor his meticulousness and micromanagement. Several of his top aideswere fired, his political operation settled a lawsuit with an accuser, and it costMadigan overall about $900,000.
Madigan’s power is such that theComEd scandal, even as it reflects his history of putting his interests ahead of Illinois’, hasn’t toppled him. Gov. J.B. Pritzker and other high-rankingDemocrats have not abandoned him. Not yet, anyway. Instead it’s the rank-and-file Democrats who are speaking up. Theywere content to shrug off previous scandals that brushed pastMadigan. Many of them serve inHouse seats because of his campaign money and tutelage. Nowthose 19 House Democrats have called for a new speaker.
Howit must sting to have them turn against him. But really, it’s about time.
An opening for theGOP
IllinoisRepublicans made minor gains in theNovember election in Illinois. They recently floated the idea of their House leader, Rep. Jim Durkin ofWestern Springs, courting Democrats for the January vote to beHouse speaker. That idea got torpedoed within hours. Democrats might notwant to keep reporting toMadigan, but theywon’t support a Republican to lead theHouse.
The betterway for Republicans to leverage their influence would be to get behind a Democratic speaker candidate who vows to bemore inclusive. Back aDemocrat who will open up the committee assignment process and allowtheGOPto help decide who sits, and chairs, which committees. Get behind someone who puts the interests of the state first in a bipartisanway andwould changeHouse rules to make it easier to discharge bills onto theHouse floor. Insist on a speaker who offers a more sane calendar of session days, bill deadlines and budget votes. No more throwing massive budget bills on lawmakers’ desk with no time to review them.
Anew speaker willing to run theHouse on behalf of all members could help lead Springfield to finally confront its fiscal demons.
If Republicans don’t coalesce around someone they could work with, they could get stuck withMadigan Speaker 2.0— someone with a different name but the same iron fist.
Illinois deserves better. The road to reform begins with Madigan’s exit. The only test lawmakers should be considering as theyweigh his forceful insistence to remain in power is this: Madigan has ruled over Illinois for 40 years. Is the state better off? Resoundingly, no.
Madigan’s power is such that the ComEd scandal, even as it reflects his history of putting his interests ahead of Illinois’, hasn’t toppled him. Gov. J.B. Pritzker and other high-ranking Democrats have not abandoned him. Not yet, anyway. Instead it’s the rank-and-file Democrats who are speaking up.