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.
Steve 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 US 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 former Rep. Acevedo’s hiring was done to bribe
Speaker 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 assistant U.S. attorney 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. Defense attorney 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.