Crime & Law

Ex-AT&T Illinois President Seeks to Have Bribery Charges Tied to Madigan Tossed

The Dirksen Courthouse is pictured in Chicago. (Capitol News Illinois)

Paul La Schiazza, the former head of AT&T Illinois who was charged in 2022 with attempting to bribe ex-House Speaker Michael Madigan, is now seeking to have some of his charges tossed out after a U.S. Supreme Court decision this year redefined federal bribery statutes.

La Schiazza on Tuesday filed a motion to dismiss a pair of bribery and conspiracy charges, a month after the Supreme Court ruled that bribery cases now must require a “quid pro quo” agreement.

“Ultimately, in Snyder v. United States, the Supreme Court rejected the government’s interpretation of Section 666, holding that the statute applies only to bribes, and that bribery ‘requires that the official have a corrupt state of mind and accept (or agree to accept) the payment intending to be influenced in the official act,’” La Schiazza’s defense attorneys wrote in a filing Tuesday.

The Chicago Tribune first reported on La Schiazza’s new motion. The former AT&T Illinois president is accused of paying former Illinois state Rep. Eddie Acevedo — a Madigan ally — $2,500 a month for a consulting job in order to earn the speaker’s support on state legislation favorable to the company.

AT&T Illinois agreed to pay a $23 million fine in order to resolve a federal criminal investigation into its alleged misconduct involving efforts to unlawfully influence Madigan.

The high court’s ruling in the case of former Portage, Indiana, mayor James Snyder significantly altered the federal bribery statute at issue — known as Section 666. Already Madigan’s own upcoming racketeering trial has been delayed, and his legal team is now seeking to have more than a dozen charges tossed out following the Snyder decision.

Four former ComEd officials found guilty last year of conspiring to bribe Madigan will also seek to have those convictions tossed out.

La Schiazza’s attorneys argued that because of the Snyder decision, federal prosecutors are arguing a faulty interpretation of Section 666 that has now been rejected by the high court.

His attorneys also claim prosecutors failed to show any connection between Madigan’s legislative actions and the benefits he allegedly received from AT&T, “much less an express agreement by Madigan to undertake these acts in exchange for Mr. La Schiazza having AT&T offer Acevedo a consulting job.”

“In other words,” La Schiazza’s attorneys wrote, “no agreement of a ‘this’ in exchange for ‘that’ is alleged in the indictment. Absent such allegations, the Indictment fails to allege the essential elements of Counts One or Two, and those counts should be dismissed.”

---