Madigan’s ‘Make Mike Money Plan’: Closing Arguments Continue in Landmark Corruption Trial

Michael Madigan is depicted in court on Jan. 7, 2025. (Illustration by Cheryl Cook) Michael Madigan is depicted in court on Jan. 7, 2025. (Illustration by Cheryl Cook)

Powerful Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan leaned on Danny Solis for introductions to real estate developers so frequently that at a certain point, Madigan didn’t even need to say out loud what he was looking for from the longtime 25th Ward alderperson, federal prosecutors explained Thursday.

“And, and you know why I’m interested,” Madigan said in a January 2018 wiretapped conversation with Solis about a development in the alderperson’s ward.

Thursday marked the second day of closing arguments in the speaker’s landmark racketeering and bribery trial, as prosecutors continued detailing the five corruption schemes Madigan allegedly orchestrated.

Thanks to our sponsors:

View all sponsors

Madigan and his longtime right-hand man Michael McClain face charges including racketeering conspiracy, federal program bribery and wire fraud. Madigan alone is also accused of attempted extortion. Both men have pleaded not guilty.

Madigan’s interactions with Solis — who became a federal cooperator whom prosecutors described as a “walking microphone” as he recorded his calls and conversations for years — led to several of those charges, including allegations that the speaker tried to illegally funnel business to his private tax law firm.

“This was Michael Madigan’s ‘Make Mike Money Plan,’” Assistant U.S. Attorney Diane MacArthur said. “This was about Mike Madigan — what he wanted, what he got and what he continued to pursue Danny Solis to get.”

Solis offered Madigan two major benefits through his official position, MacArthur explained, as he both served in the booming 25th Ward and as chair of the Zoning Committee, which gave him authority over development projects in Chicago.

Madigan would reach out to Solis, according to MacArthur, and use the alderperson’s official position to gain private benefits for himself by setting up meetings with developers so he could pitch them on his law firm, Madigan & Getzendanner.

According to MacArthur, Madigan wanted Solis to be the one reaching out to the developers because he knew they wouldn’t say no to the head of the Zoning Committee.

The longtime alderperson eventually began to cooperate with the government in 2016 after he was confronted by FBI agents with evidence of his own bribery actions. He agreed to wear a wire and record calls and in-person conversations for more than two years, and his bribery charge will be dismissed later this year as part of a deferred prosecution agreement.

In June 2017, about a year after Solis began cooperating, he got a call from Madigan asking about an introduction to the developers of the Union West real estate project in Solis’ ward. This call, MacArthur explained, shifted the Solis investigation, as the speaker had to this point not been a target of the feds.

In a recorded call between Solis and Madigan later that month, Solis mentioned to Madigan he believed the developers of the Union West property “understand how this works, you know the quid pro quo.”

“Yeah, OK,” Madigan replied.

Prosecutors have alleged this response shows Madigan was happy to engage in a trade of public action for his own private gain.

“Danny Solis was not subtle” in his language during that call, MacArthur said, adding that his “quid pro quo” comment should have been a clear red flag and drawn a “very quick and immediate reaction” from Madigan.

Madigan testified in court that he had a “great deal of surprise and concern” when he heard that remark, but instead of admonishing him immediately, he opted to wait three weeks to confront him in person and tell Solis not to use those words.

MacArthur argued that Madigan’s reaction made no sense and instead reflected that rather than feeling concerned, he wanted to continue to move forward with the developer meeting.

“Michael Madigan is not a man who forgets about people who do him wrong,” MacArthur said. “Had Mr. Madigan really wanted to bring a stop to this, he would have done it. And he did not.”

AT&T Bribery Allegations

In another alleged scheme, Madigan and McClain set up a “bogus arrangement” for AT&T Illinois to pay ex-state Rep. Eddie Acevedo — one of the speaker’s loyal associates — $22,500 over nine months as a bribe even as Acevedo “did no work for the company,” according to Assistant U.S. Attorney Julia Schwartz.

“The defendants strategically arranged these payments to Acevedo,” Schwartz told jurors, “when AT&T needed Madigan the most.”

During the trial, jurors saw emails from early 2017, when AT&T’s top legislative priority bill — carrier of last resort, or COLR, relief— was pending in the Illinois House. Until it received that relief, AT&T was required to provide landline service to any customer who requested it throughout Illinois.

AT&T had unsuccessfully pushed for this relief for years and Schwartz claimed one of the major roadblocks in getting that legislation passed was Madigan himself.

In one email from Feb. 14, 2017, McClain asked an AT&T official whether there was “even a small contract” for Acevedo. Two days later, McClain told AT&T Illinois President Paul La Schiazza that Madigan had assigned him to work on the AT&T legislation as a “Special Project.”

On March 28, 2017, La Schiazza allegedly confirmed that AT&T had gotten the “GO order” to hire Acevedo — which prosecutors claimed was a directive from Madigan, given through McClain — and directed his employees to “move quickly to get this done.”

“This was a bogus arrangement,” Schwartz said, alleging that the only reason the phone company agreed to pay was in order to bribe Madigan.

Schwartz explained how Acevedo never had to submit a resume to AT&T, never interviewed for his job and even became upset and unprofessional when he first heard what his pay would be.

“AT&T hired him anyway,” she said.

On the witness stand, Acevedo insisted AT&T had given him assignments, though he also said he suffers from dementia and has significant memory issues. The person he claimed he reported to while he worked for AT&T no longer worked for the company at the time Acevedo was there, according to prosecutors.

"All the evidence shows Eddie Acevedo did no work for the $22,500 he received," Schwartz said.

ComEd Bribery Allegations

Schwartz on Wednesday detailed for jurors the bulk of the Commonwealth Edison-related bribery scheme, including how Madigan and McClain allegedly orchestrated essentially no-work contracts for four of the speaker’s allies.

Those four were paid more than $1 million in total, even though they completed little or no work for the company over the course of several years.

This was allegedly done in order to secure Madigan’s support on energy legislation that was critical to keeping ComEd afloat and improving its precarious financial state.

“It’s critical to note ComEd’s legislative ties did turn once all these benefits started being showered on Madigan,” Schwartz said Thursday.

Already, McClain and three other ComEd-connected officials were convicted in 2023 of conspiring to bribe Madigan in the “ComEd Four” trial.

Schwartz opened the second day of closing arguments Thursday morning by continuing to detail the extensive ComEd allegations, specifically how Madigan pushed for the utility giant to pay his allies and associates.

Schwartz alleged Madigan, through McClain, ensured prominent businessman Juan Ochoa would be appointed to ComEd’s board of directors, even as utility officials expressed concerns about the move, because Ochoa had been recommended to him by then-U.S. Rep. Luis Gutiérrez.

“Gutiérrez is the only reason Madigan would talk to Ochoa,” Schwartz told jurors, claiming Madigan wanted to score political capital from a powerful congressman. “He doesn’t care about Ochoa. He cares about himself.”

As part of the scheme, ComEd allegedly further tried to bribe Madigan and remain in his good graces by offering summer internship slots to students recommended from the 13th Ward, even if they didn’t always meet applicant requirements.

Madigan and McClain also allegedly pressured ComEd to sign the Reyes Kurson law firm to a contract for legal work because one of its partners — Victor Reyes — was a major Democratic fundraiser in Illinois.

According to Schwartz, Madigan got ComEd to pay Victor Reyes $1.8 million in legal fees because he knew he held the keys to the company’s legislative success in Springfield.

“This was a way of Madigan using ComEd,” Schwartz said, “as his own personal piggy bank.”

During her portion of the government’s closing arguments, Schwartz repeatedly attacked the credibility of Madigan’s testimony, after the speaker denied that damaging conversations ever took place.

In one instance, Moody testified that he ran into Madigan while out canvassing in 2018 and expressed concern that he hadn’t been doing any work for ComEd. According to Moody, Madigan told him that what he had been doing — specifically, political work for Madigan — “is what I want” and “it’s what ComEd wants.”

Madigan aide Will Cousineau also testified that two years earlier in 2016, when it appeared the Future Energy Jobs Act — one of those critical pieces of legislation ComEd was desperate to pass — didn’t have the necessary votes, the speaker instructed him to go out and “try to find the votes” to make sure it would be approved.

Madigan on the witness stand denied that either of those conversations had occurred, but Schwartz claimed that the comments from both Moody and Cousineau were consistent with other evidence.

“This is another instance,” Schwartz said Thursday, “where Mr. Madigan is not telling the truth.”

Madigan’s defense team is expected to begin its closing arguments sometime Friday, followed by McClain’s defense team and then the government’s rebuttal arguments before jurors begin their deliberations.

This is a developing story.


Thanks to our sponsors:

View all sponsors

Thanks to our sponsors:

View all sponsors