Former ComEd exec turned government mole Fidel Marquez testifies during Michael Madigan’s trial on Nov. 14, 2024. (Illustration by Cheryl Cook)

Was Commonwealth Edison trading jobs and contracts in exchange for actions from House Speaker Michael Madigan in Springfield, or did the utility company simply extend a “favor” to the powerful politician by listening to his job recommendations?

That’s part of what jurors must decide in Madigan’s landmark corruption trial.

Madigan, 82, and his longtime friend and confidant Michael McClain, 77, are charged with racketeering, bribery and wire fraud. They have each pleaded not guilty.

Prosecutors on Tuesday wrapped up their direct questioning of former ComEd exec turned government mole Fidel Marquez — who spent his fourth day on the witness stand — allowing McClain’s defense attorney Patrick Cotter to begin his cross examination.

The former House speaker is alleged to have orchestrated multiple corruption schemes, wielding his significant political power to enrich himself and reward loyal allies.

The most substantial of those alleged schemes involved utility giant ComEd as prosecutors have claimed Madigan and McClain — who worked as a contract lobbyist with ComEd — arranged subcontractor jobs for several of the speaker’s “political cronies” with the company.

In exchange, according to the government, Madigan supported critical energy legislation in Springfield that benefitted ComEd.

Marquez, who acted as an undercover mole for the government in early 2019, previously pleaded guilty to a bribery charge for his role in the alleged ComEd conspiracy.

But Cotter noted during his cross examination, Marquez initially denied any wrongdoing when confronted by FBI agents, and continued doing so for more than a year. Cotter on Tuesday asked Marquez if he claimed he wasn’t involved in a conspiracy to trade jobs for legislative action.

“I pled guilty to the conspiracy in filling those jobs so that Michael Madigan would look favorably on ComEd’s legislative agenda,” Marquez answered.

“Not exchange jobs for actions?” Cotter asked

“Looking at it favorably,” Marquez said, “in my mind, is an action.”

The issue is a crucial one in this case after the U.S. Supreme Court this year narrowed the federal bribery statute, meaning there must be a quid pro quo agreement in place for actions to qualify as bribery.

While ComEd’s former top attorney testified that utility execs joked about McClain being a “double agent” representing both ComEd as a contract lobbyist and Madigan, Cotter attempted to show his client was simply doing what any good lobbyist would do.

Madigan had previously been “hostile” toward electrical utilities like ComEd — Marquez testified he knew the speaker “didn’t like” the company — but through his relationship with McClain, he came to have a “favorable disposition” toward ComEd’s legislative agenda.

“It was part of Mike’s job to do everything he could to have the best communication between the speaker and his staff, and ComEd?” Cotter asked Marquez.

“Yes,” he replied.

“It made sense, did it not … that Mike McClain spent an enormous amount of time on Speaker Madigan?” Cotter asked.

“Yes,” Marquez answered.

Cotter on Tuesday also presented calls and emails showing that when ComEd encountered legislation it opposed, McClain didn’t suggest running to Madigan to ensure he killed those bills. Instead, he worked with utility execs on various plans to fight the legislation.

Marquez told jurors McClain never told him that Madigan would take any official action to help pass ComEd legislation in exchange for the company granting jobs to people he’d recommended.

"That was never said," Marquez testified.

Prosecutors have alleged the relationship between Madigan and McClain went well beyond the boundaries of legal lobbying and into illegal bribery.

Jurors last week heard how he and other ComEd executives regularly pushed to hire several candidates recommended by Madigan for low-level jobs despite them “bombing” interviews and appearing generally unqualified for work at the company.

But Cotter pointed out Madigan wasn’t the only one making job recommendations — other elected officials did too, along with religious groups, community organizations and more. Marquez testified this wasn’t seen as illegal, but instead was seen as a “favor” extended by ComEd to hear these requests out.

Jurors on Tuesday also heard a wiretapped phone conversation from February 2019 in which McClain, Marquez and former ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore discussed a “conundrum” they faced in finding a new point person between the company and Madigan.

McClain by this point had retired and explained on the call that his replacement had to secure the trust of both ComEd and Madigan while also being “very discreet” and understanding the “code” they had used.

“So like, when all of a sudden I come to you and say ‘Uh, would you take a look at this resume?’ I mean that’s like, ‘Will you drop and do and try to get this done as fast as possible,’ right?” McClain explained on the call.

The trial, now in its sixth week, is expected to extend into next year.