Everyone agrees that “King Madigan” has decided, but the jury must decide whether the speaker was bribed in the recent corruption trial

There is no doubt about the power Michael J. Madigan once wielded in Springfield – it apparently even offended the man now on trial for bribery in 2017.

“King Madigan lives—re-elected speaker,” complained Paul La Schiazza, president of AT&T Illinois, in an email circle with colleagues in January 2017, responding to a Chicago Sun-Times article about the Southwest Side Democrat’s continued influence in the Senate.

Years earlier, La Schiazza had also written that Madigan “cannot lose, the system is rigged because everyone in the system is beholden to the speaker.”

Now, La Schiazza is accused of bribing Madigan by hiring a Madigan ally to get key legislation passed. Although La Schiazza's lawyers do not dispute Madigan's influence, prosecutors nevertheless hammered that point home to jurors as the trial began in earnest on Wednesday.

“Madigan exercised enormous control over Illinois politics and policy,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul Mower said in his opening statement. “And that power was no secret, even to the defendant.”

La Schiazza's defense attorney, Jack Dodds, did not disagree. He countered, however, that his client was in the lobbying business and that it was La Schiazza's job to build relationships and maintain the client's goodwill – and to take officials' job recommendations seriously.

He did that when a request came in for a “small assignment” for former state Rep. Edward “Eddie” Acevedo, Dodds said.

La Schiazza and AT&T Illinois agreed in 2017 to pay Acevedo $22,500 through a third party in an effort to pass a bill reportedly worth millions to the utility, at the request of Michael McClain, who was widely known as Madigan's right-hand man.

AT&T Illinois was separately charged in 2022 and agreed to pay a $23 million fine. Acevedo is already in prison for tax evasion.

Although little of what happened is in dispute, Dodds told jurors Wednesday they would see no evidence of an explicit exchange – Acevedo's money for passing the law. Nor would jurors see any evidence that La Schiazza knew “he was doing something wrong,” Dodds said.

Mower said La Schiazza pushed his team to hire Acevedo even though Acevedo was “unpleasant, drank too much, talked too much and was generally despised by Republicans in Springfield.”

AT&T Illinois made the payments to Acevedo through a firm owned by lobbyist Tom Cullen. Although Mower said the firm kept the deal “completely” secret, Dodds said it was all about Acevedo's bad reputation – “they didn't want to upset Republicans.”

La Schiazza's trial is the last in a series of trials before Madigan goes on trial on Oct. 8. The charges include the alleged conspiracy with AT&T Illinois. At least two grand panels heard similar testimony about Madigan's power last year.

U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman, prosecutors and defense attorneys on Tuesday selected nine women and six men to hear the case against La Schiazza. Three unnamed members of the panel are alternates.

When the trial resumes Thursday, jurors are expected to hear from Stephen Selcke, a former lobbyist for AT&T Illinois, who is scheduled to testify under an immunity agreement.

Mower told the jury in his opening statement that the payments to Acevedo were “all at Madigan's request.” But then prosecutors introduced McClain to the jury through the testimony of former state Reps. Scott Drury and Greg Harris.

McClain was convicted in May 2023 along with three other former ComEd officials and lobbyists for a similar plot with the electric company. He is due to stand trial alongside Madigan in October. Prosecutors have told multiple juries that he acted as an emissary for Madigan.

Drury told jurors he met McClain during his first term, when McClain came to his office and said “he was very close to the speaker.” Harris also testified that McClain pretended to deliver messages for the speaker — although Harris said he didn't always know if that was true.

Both former lawmakers spoke about the enormous control Madigan exercised in Springfield. But Tinos Diamantatos, another lawyer for La Schiazza, used his cross-examination to point out that Illinois' system of government is not unique, that Madigan, like any other legislator, must regularly seek re-election, and that “voters can certainly vote someone out.”

Meanwhile, prosecutors have said McClain used code words like “our friend” when referring to Madigan, rather than using the speaker's name. But on Wednesday they said it was La Schiazza who stopped mentioning Madigan's name as the plot neared its climax. In an April 2017 email, La Schiazza referred to Madigan only as “the other party.”

“The defendant went from denouncing 'King Madigan' to referring to 'the other party,'” Mower said.