Nearly 20 years ago, House Speaker Michael Madigan 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 who worked for him to join her campaign apparatus, from secretaries 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 from their weddings, Christmas card lists, church and volunteer groups, names, addresses, phone numbers. He made many, many personal calls on her behalf as she faced tough opposition in the primary and general elections.
From a 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 exactly where 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 exactly what he meant.” After that endorsement was secured, legislation sought by the union was called for a House vote and passed.
Lisa Madigan won that attorney general election and went on to serve three more terms.
Madigan on the ropes
That union leader’s summation of Madigan — the kingpin who delivers his brute-force directives with subtlety — resonates again in the ComEd scandal 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 lobbyists working aggressively to please him, for example by funneling money and do-nothing jobs to his loyalists.
What other companies or special interest groups that needed help from the 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. Some House Democrats have said they would not vote to reelect him speaker:
They are: Maurice West of Rockford, Kelly Cassidy of Chicago, Stephanie Kifowit of Oswego, Lindsey LaPointe of Chicago, Yoni Pizer of Chicago, Anne Stava-Murray of Naperville, Jennifer Gong-Gershowitz of Glenview, Bob Morgan of Deerfield, Kathleen Willis of Addison, Will Guzzardi of Chicago, Terra Costa Howard of Lombard, Deb Conroy of Elmhurst, Margaret Croke of Chicago, Eva-Dina Delgado of Chicago, Daniel Didech of Buffalo Grove, Jonathan Carroll of Northbrook, Robyn Gabel of Evanston, Anna Moeller of Elgin, Ann Williams of Chicago and Sam Yingling of Grayslake.
Madigan says he’s staying in the race for the speakership and won’t step down as 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 from at 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, he would 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 how Madigan and other Springfield politicians routinely offered clouted families free college tuition and a pipeline to the University of Illinois. Madigan rewarded his campaign donors and relatives of other public officials by running interference to get them admitted to the U. of I. The flagship state school depends on Madigan and lawmakers for its annual budget allocation. So of course, university officials always scrambled to please him.
John Hooker, the former ComEd lobbyist now indicted in the ongoing corruption case, had family members who were recipients of the program, dating back to 1999 at a time he was the well-paid utility company’s top lobbyist in Springfield. Former Chicago Ald. Frank Olivo, 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 prompted University of Illinois President B. Joseph White and six trustees to step down, and lawmakers voted to end the tuition waiver program.
There were no repercussions for Madigan or other elected officials who leveraged their influence to the benefit of favored constituents, donors and political organizations.
The ComEd scandal also is not Madigan’s first brush with the feds. Federal prosecutors began looking into Madigan’s and other legislative leaders’ use of taxpayer-funded bonuses to staff members years ago. Madigan gave his workers taxpayer-funded “bonuses” of more than $424,000 at a time the state’s budget could not be balanced (of course) and Medicaid and other programs for the poor were being scaled back. The money was believed to be reward for campaign work — a potentially illegal overlap of state resources and political campaigns — but Madigan was never charged.
Madigan and patronage
The Tribune in 2014 traced more than 400 current and retired government employees who had strong ties to Madigan and found “repeated instances in which Madigan 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 campaign-related resources.
From that Tribune investigation: “One precinct captain went from being 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 a management position with the county despite a federal conviction as a ghost payroller. And a former top vote-getter for Madigan who rose from streetlight repair worker for the city to the No. 2 spot in the Transportation Department is now at 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 known for his meticulousness and micromanagement. Several of his top aides were fired, his political operation settled a lawsuit with an accuser, and it cost Madigan overall about $900,000.
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. They were content to shrug off previous scandals that brushed past Madigan. Many of them serve in House seats because of his campaign money and tutelage. Now those 19 House Democrats have called for a new speaker.
How it must sting to have them turn against him. But really, it’s about time.
An opening for the GOP
Illinois Republicans made minor gains in the November election in Illinois. They recently floated the idea of their House leader, Rep. Jim Durkin of Western Springs, courting Democrats for the January vote to be House speaker. That idea got torpedoed within hours. Democrats might not want to keep reporting to Madigan, but they won’t support a Republican to lead the House.
The better way for Republicans to leverage their influence would be to get behind a Democratic speaker candidate who vows to be more inclusive. Back a Democrat who will open up the committee assignment process and allow the GOP to help decide who sits, and chairs, which committees. Get behind someone who puts the interests of the state first in a bipartisan way and would change House rules to make it easier to discharge bills onto the House 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.
A new speaker willing to run the House 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 with Madigan 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 they weigh his forceful insistence to remain in power is this: Madigan has ruled over Illinois for 40 years. Is the state better off? Resoundingly, no.
Editorials reflect the opinion of the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board.
Get our latest editorials, commentaries and columns delivered twice a week in our Fighting Words newsletter. Sign up here.
Join the discussion on Twitter @chitribopinions and on Facebook.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
