Michael McClain, lobbyist and Madigan confidant at the center of the ComEd bribery scandal, finally faces sentencing
Michael Francis McClain.
As a longtime lobbyist for utility giant Commonwealth Edison who doubled as Madigan's closest confidant, McClain toiled for years in relative obscurity, known mostly by Springfield insiders and political reporters as the former legislator from downstate Quincy with the thick prescription glasses who always seemed to be hanging around Madigan's office suite in the Capitol.
But it was through his close relationship with Illinois' most powerful and reticent politician, prosecutors say, that McClain was able to leverage knowledge of the speaker's thinking to induce ComEd executives to lavish money on Madigan's cronies and scramble to meet his myriad other demands.
Now, more than two years after McClain's conviction in the historic 'ComEd Four' bribery case, McClain is scheduled to learn his fate Thursday at the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse, where he faces sentencing in what has become one of the biggest bribery scandals in state history.
McClain, 77, will be the third of the four defendants to be sentenced in the case, and as with the others, U.S. District Judge Manish Shah will have wide latitude in deciding a punishment.
Earlier this week, former ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore was given two years in prison, while John Hooker, the utility's former top internal lobbyist, received a year and a half behind bars at a hearing last week.
Consultant Jay Doherty, the former head of the City Club of Chicago, will be sentenced next month. Prosecutors on Tuesday asked for a 15-month prison term for Doherty, saying his 'discreet handling and willingness to conceal the true nature' of subcontractor payments to Madigan associates were 'vitally important' to the scheme.
Prosecutors have asked for nearly six years in prison for McClain, writing in a recent court filing that the 'stunning' scheme was his brainchild and was 'illegal to its core.'
'In securing benefits for both Madigan and ComEd, McClain corrupted the legislative process and the internal control processes of a large, regulated utility,' prosecutors said. 'McClain's repeated overstepping of legal lines in this case is stunning.'
McClain's attorneys asked for probation, stating in a filing of their own that McClain merely passed along 'a handful of job recommendations' from Madigan because of his powerful position as speaker and the fact that they were close friends.
'Doing so was legal and constitutionally protected lobbying,' defense attorneys Patrick Cotter and David Niemeier wrote. 'The government's failure to make the critical distinction between a favor done with intent to lawfully curry favor with a public official, as opposed to the trading of gifts for actions done by that official, was at the heart of this case.'
The hearing marks an important milestone in McClain's legal saga, which began in May 2019 when the feds raided his home. Four years later, in May 2023, he was found guilty on all counts in the ComEd Four trial. That was followed by another trial with Madigan himself that ended earlier this year with a jury hung on all counts against McClain.
The sentencing also happens to come six years to the day that the Tribune first reported the feds were looking into thousands of dollars in checks that McClain and other ComEd-connected lobbyists had sent to Kevin Quinn, a top Madigan political operative ousted after he was accused of sexually harassing a campaign staffer.
Later in 2019, the Tribune first disclosed McClain's cellphone had been wiretapped by the FBI — which ultimately formed the lynchpin of the entire investigation.
In the ensuing years, Illinois has gotten to know McClain in a level of detail far beyond most criminal defendants. Through three criminal trials, including the perjury case against former Madigan chief of staff Tim Mapes, there have been dozens of wiretapped calls played in court and hundreds of his emails publicly displayed, conversations that painted a picture of how McClain used his unfettered access to Madigan to get some of Illinois' top executives to scramble to meet their demands.
The wiretaps and other evidence revealed McClain's use of crude code words for Madigan, often referring to the speaker as 'our Friend' or 'Himself,' as well as his penchant for archaic military terminology, such as when he told Madigan in a retirement note he would remain 'at the bridge with my musket' for the speaker.
The communications also captured McClain at his most blunt, telling Pramaggiore in an email in 2016 that ComEd's reluctance to kick more money to a Madigan-preferred law firm would have dire repercussions down the road.
'I know the drill and so do you,' he wrote to Pramaggiore. 'If you do not get involved and resolve this issue of 850 hours for his law firm per year then he will go to our Friend. Our Friend will call me and then I will call you. Is this a drill we must go through?'
In his sentencing filing, McClain's attorney, Patrick Cotter, noted that witnesses at trial all testified McClain was an extremely skilled lobbyist and hard worker, someone who sought, as all good lobbyists do, to build relationships with powerful politicians and advocate his clients' positions.
What's more, Cotter wrote, there was nothing illegal about his overtures, regardless of how they were articulated.
'Simply put, over almost a decade, Mr. McClain passed along and advocated for a handful of job recommendations from Madigan because of Madigan's position both as an influential member of the General Assembly and, in no small measure, because Madigan was Mr. McClain's old and close friend,' Cotter wrote. 'Doing so was legal and constitutionally protected lobbying. It should not have been treated as a crime.'
Cotter also said it would be 'unjust' to make McClain a scapegoat for the state's history of political corruption or some abstract symbol 'to promote whatever current notion (prosecutors) maintain of 'good government.''
'Mr. McClain has not held political office in over 30 years,' Cotter wrote. 'He is neither responsible for, nor is it just to punish him to any degree for generations of the way politics has been conducted by other people in this state, or practices that pre-date his birth and may, one suspects, continue in various, perhaps different, incarnations long after he is gone.'
McClain and his three co-defendants — Pramaggiore, Hooker and Doherty — were convicted on all counts in May 2023 after a two-month trial.
The case was then beset by a series of delays, first because of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that reset the rules for a key federal bribery statute and then again after the death of the judge who'd presided over the trial, Harry Leinenweber.
The bulk of the ComEd allegations centered on a cadre of Madigan allies who were paid a total of $1.3 million from 2011 through 2019 through allegedly do-nothing consulting contracts. Among the recipients were two former aldermen, Frank Olivo and Michael Zalewski, precinct captains Ray Nice and Edward Moody, and former state Rep. Edward Acevedo.
In addition, prosecutors alleged ComEd also hired a clouted law firm run by political operative Victor Reyes, distributed numerous college internships within Madigan's 13th Ward fiefdom, and backed former McPier chief Juan Ochoa, a friend of a Madigan ally, for an $80,000-a-year seat on the utility's board of directors, the indictment alleged.
In return, prosecutors alleged, Madigan used his influence over the General Assembly to help ComEd score a series of huge legislative victories that not only rescued the company from financial instability but led to record-breaking, billion-dollar profits.
Among them was the 2011 smart grid bill that set a built-in formula for the rates ComEd could charge customers, avoiding battles with the Illinois Commerce Commission, according to the charges. ComEd also leaned on Madigan's office to help pass the Future Energy Jobs Act in 2016, which kept the formula rate in place and also rescued two nuclear plants run by an affiliated company, Exelon Generation.
Madigan, meanwhile, was convicted in a separate trial of an array of schemes that included the ComEd bribery payments. He was sentenced in June to seven and a half years in prison.
Defense attorneys for the ComEd Four have repeatedly argued the government was seeking to criminalize legal lobbying and job recommendations that are at the heart of the state's legitimate political system.
But prosecutors say the entire scope of the scheme is still fair game, even if the specific bribery counts were dropped — a position that Shah has agreed with.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
14 minutes ago
- Politico
The Republican donor ready to fight Newsom on redistricting
THE MUNGER GAMES TRILOGY — Charles Munger Jr. was one of California's best-resourced political hobbyists, a Palo Alto physicist who tapped a family fortune to sell voters on a series of good-government reforms before effectively announcing his retirement from ballot measure politics in 2020. But Munger, the 68-year-old son of Warren Buffett's longtime business partner, has been drawn back to the fray by Gov. Gavin Newsom's proposed mid-decade partisan gerrymander of California's congressional districts. Newsom describes it as a tit-for-tat offset of a similar move underway in Texas, but there is one major difference between the two states: California voters would have to rewrite the state constitution to give politicians the right to intervene in the process. Now, according to Munger advisers, the donor who spent $13 million to establish that constitutional status quo is ready to spend more in defense of a signature achievement. As Newsom attempts to rally support from skeptical Democrats nationwide for his plan to revert back to partisan line-drawing, Munger is taking early steps to assemble a campaign that could defeat a Newsom measure at the ballot in a possible snap election this November. 'Any attempt to undermine the nonpartisan California Redistricting Commission will be strongly opposed in the courts and at the ballot box,' Munger wrote earlier this month on a newly created X account that as of press time had 56 followers. Prop 11, the 2008 amendment which first created an independent redistricting commission for state legislative districts, passed with about 51 percent of the vote. Its success was a bipartisan triumph: Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was the measure's most vocal advocate, while prominent Democratic donors — including then- New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (at the time a political independent), media investor Haim Saban and former Netflix CEO Reed Hastings — were among its most generous backers. Prop 11's proponents then came back two years later to extend the commission's authority to U.S. House districts in time for the decennial redistricting season via Proposition 20. This time, the campaign was funded almost entirely by Munger, an ideological moderate trained in atomic physics at U.C. Berkeley, who had given $1 million to pass Prop 11 before shelling out $12 million to the Yes on 20 campaign. Newsom has said he would like to see California change its rules so that districting lines can be redrawn before the November 2026 midterm elections. (Newsom has spoken only of the congressional map and hasn't addressed whether his proposal would keep redistricting commission in place for state legislative seats.) That would likely mean a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on a special-election ballot this fall, leaving Munger limited time to rally opposition. Munger has recruited campaign consultants and earlier this month began commissioning polls and focus groups to determine the contours of a campaign that would likely turn again to a coalition of Republican leaders and good-government progressives — albeit in a very different partisan environment. 'The governor is trying to develop a bit of a national profile and sees this as a vehicle for doing that,' said Dan Vicuna, a senior policy director for Common Cause, which submitted voter arguments for Prop 20 in 2010 and likely would play part in any revived coalition. 'We have a straightforward narrative. Republicans in Texas, Democrats in California, are doing what they always do with redistricting — using it to their political advantage … I kind of like our odds in that political fight.' NEWS BREAK: Covid-19 spikes in California … Home prices drop in San Jose summer sales … University of California admits record number of California residents amid continued uncertainty. Welcome to Ballot Measure Weekly, a special edition of Playbook PM focused on California's lively realm of ballot measure campaigns. Drop us a line at eschultheis@ and wmccarthy@ or find us on X — @emilyrs and @wrmccart. TOP OF THE TICKET A highly subjective ranking of the ballot measures — past and future, certain and possible — getting our attention this week. 1. Save Prop 13 Act (2026?): The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is preparing to decide which of three versions of a constitutional amendment to take to voters, despite being what president Jon Coupal says is 'a little bit disappointed' by ballot language the attorney general's office has drawn up for two of them. (The third should get its title and summary by the end of August.) 2. Gross receipts tax repeal (Los Angeles, 2026?): Southland chamber of commerce leaders have launched an an initiative effort aimed at the city's gross-receipts tax, part of a counteroffensive to the city's new $30 minimum wage law and a series of related initiatives targeting the tourism industry proposed by Unite Here Local 11. 3. School choice (2026?): Former Thousand Oaks Mayor Kevin McNamee is planning to file a constitutional amendment that would allow parents to use state money allocated to public schools for private schools or homeschooling instead. McNamee, who has enlisted Newsom recall veteran Mike Netter to develop a volunteer-driven petition drive, says he will file this week. 4. Prop 12 (2018): The federal battle over the animal-welfare initiative is dividing congressional Republicans, as Reps. Anna Paulina Luna, Andrew Garbarino and Brian Fitzpatrick take California's side against Rep. G.T. Thompson's efforts to gut the state's confinement regulations in an upcoming farm bill. They argue Congress shouldn't 'strip states of their right to govern agriculture practices within their respective jurisdictions,' according to a draft letter obtained by POLITICO. 5. Measure W (Alameda County, 2020): Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee has joined anti-homelessness activists in pushing the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to ensure hundreds of millions in sales-tax revenue go toward funding homelessness programs as promised by a 2020 ballot measure. An appeals-court judge ruled earlier this year that the county can spend the money however it wants because it was approved as a general tax and not a special tax. 6. Anti-incarceration funding (Los Angeles County, 2026?): The latest meeting of the task force to implement a sweeping governance reform approved by voters last fall was partially overshadowed by the administrative error that led the county to accidentally wipe out Measure J, a 2020 charter amendment to fund jail alternatives. A county attorney told the task force that officials are still figuring out how to fix that snafu — whether it can be handled administratively or would need to go before voters again in 2026. 7. Proposition K (San Francisco, 2024): Supervisor Joel Engardio is touting a 'first of its kind' endorsement from the Sierra Club as he aims to hold off a recall campaign triggered by a contentious initiative. The environmental group ranked him top amongst San Francisco supervisors on a recent scorecard, in part due to his support for closing off the coastal Great Highway to create a city park. I'M JUST A BILL BAY AREA TRANSIT FUNDING: Big business interests are hoping to smooth over a rupture within the coalition behind a likely November 2026 regional transit initiative by changing the conversation from how the measure would be funded to what it would actually do. Thus far the internal debate within the transit-funding coalition has revolved around the type of tax that could be used to raise cash for BART, MUNI and other struggling systems. The Bay Area Council, which has been expected to help fund a campaign, wants a half-percent sales tax. A labor-backed coalition called Bay Area Forward would like to instead see a gross-receipts tax, arguing voters concerned with cost of living would be more likely to support a tax paid by businesses. The Bay Area Council has begun making the case that rewriting the measure so it promises to upgrade public transportation, rather than simply maintaining service, can raise support for the sales-tax proposal. Rather than switch the funding mechanism, the group — whose corporate members would saddle the cost of a gross-receipts tax — is proposing the measure direct revenue to 'rider focused improvements' and include a financial efficiency review to ensure they do. Although there is already language in SB 63, the legislative vehicle that now awaits a hearing in the Assembly's appropriations committee, that notes the need to improve 'public transportation service,' it's not clear exactly how those promises will manifest in the final ballot language. 'It's unlikely that voters will support a tax increase that only funds status quo operations,' said Emily Loper, who leads transportation policy for the Bay Area Council. 'We need to deliver a better system for voters to support.' ON OTHER BALLOTS Seattle's electorate will weigh in next week on whether to continue the city's 'democracy vouchers' program, which gives voters each four $25 coupons that can be donated to political candidates of their choosing ... A court in Miami ruled the city can't postpone elections planned for this fall until November 2026 without giving voters a chance to weigh in, POLITICO's Kimberly Leonard reports for Florida Playbook ... A conservative advocacy group in Colorado has launched an initiative effort to exempt tips and overtime pay from state taxes, aligning the state's policy with provisions in Congress' recently passed megabill ... Environmental groups in Oregon are considering gathering signatures for a constitutional amendment that would guarantee residents the right to a healthy and safe climate after the state legislature declined to refer a similar measure to the ballot ... Slovenia's parliament voted to cancel planned national referendums on defense spending and the country's NATO membership ... and President Donald Trump's insistence on reverting the Washington, D.C. NFL team's name to the Redskins may inadvertently aid progressive backers of an anti-stadium ballot, POLITICO's Michael Schaffer writes in his 'Capital City' column. WHATEVER HAPPENED TO ... PROP 63 (2016): Nearly 10 years ago, California voters approved a first-in-the-nation rule that banned high-capacity ammunition magazines and required background checks for the purchase of other bullets. Last week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals may have finally cast the deciding No vote on the measure. The citizen's initiative was developed by Newsom, then serving as lieutenant governor, whose ballot-measure committee ran the $3.3 million campaign. The coalitions broke down along predictable partisan lines, with the California Democratic Party spending to pass it and the state's most prominent Republicans against. (Barbra Streisand was on one side, Steven Seagal the other.) The initiative received 63 percent of the vote, slightly better than Hillary Clinton did on the same November 2016 ballot. Prop 63 faced multiple legal challenges from gun-rights groups representing citizens who claimed their constitutional rights were being violated. The 9th Circuit has thus far upheld the ban on high-capacity magazines, although the California Rifle & Pistol Association has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal. But in a separate case, a three-judge panel ruled last week that 'California's ammunition background check regime infringes on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms,' upholding a lower court's injunction against it. Newsom called the decision 'a slap in the face,' but neither he nor Attorney General Rob Bonta has declared plans to appeal it. POSTCARD FROM ... … SANTA CLARA: In recent years, many municipalities across the state have embarked on the unglamorous task of updating their aged city and county charters, many originally drafted in the 1940s and 1950s. Some, like Oakland, have pitched the changes as an antidote to all that ails them. Others, like Redondo Beach, aim to avoid outdated requirements like posting lengthy code changes in newspapers. Still more, like Alameda County, have preferred targeted reforms that nevertheless raise accusations of power grabs or political maneuvering. Now, as Santa Clara takes its bite at the charter-reform apple, city attorney Glen Googins is trying to get ahead of any concerns that the proposed changes the city voters see on a 2026 ballot are anything more than a boring local government at work on boring local-government things. 'It's really a very wonky exercise,' Googins said. 'This couldn't be less of a power grab.' Googins, who as Chula Vista's city attorney helped direct a 2022 charter revision there, was well aware of the hurdles and hoops an outdated founding document can place on a city when he joined Santa Clara's staff two years ago. One notable, time-consuming example Googins cites: a provision in the Santa Clara charter that required the council to approve any public work that costs over $1,000. 'At one time $1,000 was a lot, but now it's a ridiculous number for the city council to have to approve,' Googins said. 'It's not that anyone wants the public not to be aware of things. It's just good government.' The city council voted to empower a committee to review potential charter changes, including one that would raise the $1,000 threshold, which the council would then place before voters on the 2026 ballot. THAT TIME VOTERS ... … PASSED A VET: Californians have seen ballot measures on a wide variety of questions related to the state's military veterans, including to: Change tax policy for private property, with certain groups including war veterans exempted (1920, failed) ... Issue up to $10 million in bonds for U.S. Army and Navy veterans to acquire or develop farms or homes (1922, passed) ... Establish the Veterans Board as an independent agency with a board appointed by state officials (1985, did not qualify) ... Restore affirmative-action policies for disadvantaged groups, including disabled veterans, in educational opportunity programs, public contracts and employment (1996, did not qualify) ... Regularly audit the Cal-Vet Loan Program and impose criminal penalties on any state employees or others who knew of asserted wrongful use of Cal-Vet money (1999, did not qualify) ... Recommend that the U.S. government fund the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide quality and accessible health care to eligible veterans (2007, did not qualify) ... And allow the Legislature to provide full or partial property tax exemptions for homes belonging to disabled veterans or a disabled veteran's spouse (2012, did not qualify).
The Hill
43 minutes ago
- The Hill
Planned Parenthood Medicaid funding restored, as Dems seek BBB rollback
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani on Monday expanded a decision she handed down last week in which she issued a temporary injunction restoring Medicaid for 10 Planned Parenthood affiliates. Talwani found the law retaliated against Planned Parenthood in violation of its First Amendment rights. 'Patients are likely to suffer adverse health consequences where care is disrupted or unavailable,' Talwani wrote in the Monday ruling. 'In particular, restricting Members' ability to provide healthcare services threatens an increase in unintended pregnancies and attendant complications because of reduced access to effective contraceptives, and an increase in undiagnosed and untreated STIs.' Separately, Democrats, spearheaded by Reps. Laura Friedman (Calif.), Nikema Williams (Ga.), Chris Pappas (N.H.) in the House and Sens. Tina Smith (Minn.) and Patty Murray (Wash.) in the Senate, plan to introduce legislation that would repeal that provision of the law. The measure won't advance in the GOP-controlled Congress, but it highlights how Democrats are continuing to mobilize and message around reproductive rights. 'We're fighting to ensure people can continue getting the essential care they count on, no matter who they are or where they live,' Friedman said in a statement shared with The Hill. Trump's tax and spending package includes a provision that bars health care providers from being able to reimburse Medicaid for a year if they provide abortions and received more than $800,000 in federal funding in 2023. The lawsuit challenges that provision, because there's almost no other organization that meets the $800,000 threshold. Talwani ruled it is 'easily ascertainable' that Planned Parenthood was specifically targeted, despite the law not mentioning the organization by name. The Trump administration already appealed a temporary restraining order that Talwani imposed just after the lawsuit was filed. But pending any action from the appeals court, Monday's ruling will stand while the case plays out. Taxpayer money is already prohibited from covering most abortions. Instead, the new law cuts reimbursement for other health services provided by Planned Parenthood and other health centers, such as cancer screenings and treatment for sexually transmitted infections. For more legal coverage, sign-up for The Hill's courts newsletter The Gavel, written by Ella Lee and Zach Schonfeld. It publishes every Wednesday. Click here to sign up & get it in your inbox.
NBC News
44 minutes ago
- NBC News
Renaming the Kennedy Center for Donald and Melania Trump would violate the law that created it
WASHINGTON — House Republican proposals to name the Kennedy Center after President Donald Trump and its opera house after first lady Melania Trump would violate the law by which the Kennedy Center was created, four sources familiar with the issue told NBC News. Republicans last week passed an amendment through committee that would rename the opera house after Melania Trump, saying it was a way to recognize the first lady's support and commitment to the arts. The measure, sponsored by GOP Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho, is now part of key legislation funding the Interior Department, but would still need to pass through the full House and the Senate to become law. The next day, Rep. Bob Onder, R-Mo., introduced the 'Make Entertainment Great Again Act' to rename the whole center 'Donald J. Trump Center for Performing Arts.' The House has not yet taken any action on it. But three former board members for the Kennedy Center told NBC News that the law creating the center prohibited any of the facilities from being named, other than the Eisenhower Theater, after the president whose administration first authorized its construction in 1958. The project stalled and was revived under President John F. Kennedy, whose family led an effort to get the center built and named in his honor following his assassination. Two months later, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the legislation making it a living memorial to Kennedy. According to U.S. code, 'After December 2, 1983, no additional memorials or plaques in the nature of memorials shall be designated or installed in the public areas of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.' Republicans would have to pass legislation to change that. 'Legally, they can't just slap her name on it without congressional action,' said a spokesperson for Rep. Chellie Pingree of Maine, the lead Democrat on the Interior Appropriations subcommittee. 'If Republicans can't pass their budget — which they usually can't — the Melania Trump renaming provision dies,' the spokesperson continued. 'The only real wildcard is whether Trump or his allies ignore the law entirely and try to do it unilaterally. But that would have no legal basis — and would almost certainly trigger a court fight.' A spokesperson for Simpson said the White House and the first lady's office were not aware of his amendment before he offered it, nor was Trump-appointed Kennedy Center president Ric Grenell. The first lady's office did call Simpson's office to say thank you afterward, the spokesperson said. The White House declined to comment. Simpson sponsored the amendment because "he understands that the First Lady has always been a very avid supporter of the arts as well. She's had a long-standing commitment to the arts. ... It really did come from his heart.' As for the amendment potentially dying in the appropriations process, the Simpson spokesperson said they believe it could 'definitely' make it through in a short-term funding bill, known as a "continuing resolution," later in the year. The first lady is the honorary chair of the center, following tradition. But in a striking departure from their practice during the first Trump term, when they did not attend events there, reacting to widespread criticism of his policies by prominent artists, this year President Trump has shown a great interest in the arts. He has named himself the Kennedy Center chairman and fired the previous bipartisan Board of Trustees, along with its veteran president, Deborah Rutter, and its chairman, David M. Rubenstein. Rubenstein had donated $111 million dollars and was the center's biggest individual donor, the center said. Trump replaced Rutter with Grenell, his White House special envoy and former Ambassador to Germany. In a post on social media, Trump wrote that Grenell 'shares my Vision for a GOLDEN AGE of American Arts and Culture' and would ensure there was no more 'ANTI-AMERICAN PROPAGANDA.' In particular, Trump objected to one drag show, which he found offensive, among the 2,200 events the Kennedy Center typically produces in a year. He also told reporters on Air Force One in February, 'We don't need woke at the Kennedy Center.' In addition to firing 18 of the 36 board members that had been appointed by President Joe Biden for six-year terms, the Trump administration has ordered different programming. Notably, there are also now four large portraits of the first and second couples in the center's Hall of Nations, the main entryway to the facility. Until this year, the public spaces included only a bronze bust of President John F. Kennedy. Trump's recently enacted domestic spending bill also included more than $250 million to renovate the facility, more than six times the previous $43 million federal subsidy that was earmarked for operations and maintenance, not programming. The center also removed all references to diversity, equity and inclusion from its website. The Opera House, with more than 2,300 seats, is the center's second largest theater and the venue for the institution's signature annual concert for cultural honorees, the Kennedy Center Honors — a formal event and major fundraiser launched in 1978 and attended by all the former first couples, except the Trumps, and taped each December for rebroadcast by CBS. The gala star-studded weekend in the nation's capital every holiday season has, in the past, always included a Sunday afternoon awards ceremony hosted by the president and first lady at the White House and a celebratory Saturday night dinner at the State Department hosted by the secretary of state. During his first term, the Trumps did not host the Sunday ceremony nor attend the concert after some of the honorees said they would not attend the White House event in opposition to some of the Trump policies and his controversial comments about the white nationalist march in Charlottesville, Virginia, that year. Past honorees have included a broad spectrum of actors, musicians and other performers. President Trump and Melania Trump attended a performance of 'Les Miserables' in the opera house in June and some members of the audience booed their arrival. Vice President JD Vance and his wife Usha were also booed when attending a concert by the National Symphony. President Kennedy's grandson, Jack Schlossberg, posted strong criticism of the opera house renaming proposal last week. Caroline Kennedy's son wrote, 'JFK believed the arts made our country great and could be our most effective weapon in the fight for civil rights and against authoritarian governments around the world,' adding, 'The Trump administration stands for freedom of oppression, not expression.'
