Feds want Michael Madigan to forfeit millions following bribery, fraud convictions
The Brief
Federal prosecutors are seeking $3,140,688.13 from former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan following his bribery and fraud convictions.
Madigan, convicted on 10 counts last month, used his political influence to steer benefits to his allies and law firm.
His sentencing date is set for June 13.
CHICAGO - Federal prosecutors now want Michael Madigan to forfeit more than $3.1 million following his conviction on bribery, conspiracy, and wire fraud charges.
The request comes after a jury found Madigan guilty on 10 counts in his high-profile corruption trial last month.
What we know
Prosecutors argue the forfeited money represents proceeds from Madigan's illicit dealings, including his influence over the state's largest utility, ComEd.
The former House speaker, arguably the most powerful politician in Illinois at one point, was found guilty of using his position to enrich himself and his allies by securing jobs, contracts, and other financial benefits.
Madigan, 82, has denied wrongdoing, maintaining that he was simply helping constituents and conducting legal work.
Count 1: Racketeering conspiracy (w/McClain) - Operating an enterprise, conspiring to commit criminal acts; NO DECISION
Count 2: Conspiracy - Bribery involving ComEd hiring (the ComEd Four); GUILTY
Count 3: Bribery - Involving ComEd and former U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez; NOT GUILTY
Count 4: Bribery - Payments from ComEd to former Chicago alderman Michael Zalewski; GUILTY
Count 5: Travel Act - Interstate communication (Union West developers); GUILTY
Count 6: Bribery - ComEd payments to former Chicago Alderman Frank Olivo and others; GUILTY
Count 7: Travel Act - Interstate communication (2018); NOT GUILTY
Count 8, 9, 10: Wire fraud -Former Alderman Daniel Solis and relatives; GUILTY ON ALL
Count 11: Bribery - Solis, incoming Gov. JB Pritzker administration; NOT GUILTY
Count 12: Travel Act - Interstate communications (old post office); GUILTY
Count 13: Travel Act - Skydell, Prudential Building; GUILTY
Count 14: Travel Act - Solis and ICC or Labor Relations Board, property tax law firm; GUILTY
Count 15: Attempted extortion - Union West; NOT GUILTY
Count 16: Travel Act - Union West, "quid pro quo"; NOT GUILTY
Count 17: Travel Act - Union West, zoning approvals; NOT GUILTY
Count 18: Travel Act - Union West, Madigan tells Solis not to say "quid pro quo"; NOT GUILTY
Counts 19, 20: Wire Fraud (w/McClain) - Chinatown development; NO DECISION
Count 21: Bribery (w/McClain) - Chinatown development; NO DECISION
Count 22: Travel Act (w/McClain) - Chinatown, bill sponsor; NO DECISION
Count 23: Conspiracy (w/McClain) – AT&T Illinois boss Paul la Schiazza, former State Rep. Eddie Acevedo; NO DECISION
Dig deeper
Despite skepticism, some experts said Madigan's conviction could inspire reforms.
Former Chicago Alderman Dick Simpson, who has studied political corruption as a professor at UIC, believes the case may fuel efforts to strengthen state ethics laws.
"State government is even behind Chicago in the ethics laws that it has. And the state legislature has been purposely blocking them for decades," Simpson said.
In response to the conviction, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker said, "Today's partial conviction is an important message to anyone in government — or those thinking about public service — that if you choose corruption you will be found out, and you will be punished."
What's next
The judge in Madigan's case will decide whether the government can seize the $3.1 million as part of the former speaker's punishment. That decision will likely be made on June 9, just days before his scheduled sentencing on June 13.
April 19, 1942: Michael Joseph Madigan is born in Chicago, Illinois.
1969: At age 27, Madigan is elected as the 13th Ward Democratic Committeeman, becoming the youngest ward committeeman in Chicago at the time.
January 13, 1971: Madigan begins his tenure in the Illinois House of Representatives, representing the 27th District.
1977: He is appointed Majority Leader of the Illinois House.
January 14, 1981 – January 12, 1983: Madigan serves as Minority Leader of the Illinois House of Representatives.
1983: Madigan becomes Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives, a position he holds until 1995.
1986: Madigan plays a key role in urging Adlai Stevenson III to enter the Democratic primary for Illinois governor.
January 1995: Following a Republican majority win, Madigan serves as Minority Leader.
January 1997: He regains the role of Speaker after Democrats reclaim the House majority.
1998: Madigan is elected Chair of the Democratic Party of Illinois.
November 5, 2002: His daughter, Lisa Madigan, is elected as Illinois Attorney General.
May 31, 2017: Madigan becomes the longest-serving state House Speaker in U.S. history.
November 18, 2020: Four people, including Madigan associate Michael McClain, are indicted by a federal grand jury on charges they orchestrated a bribery scheme with Commonwealth Edison.
January 11, 2021: Madigan suspends his campaign for another term as Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives after failing to secure enough support within his party.
January 13, 2021: Madigan is succeeded by Chris Welch as Speaker of the Illinois House.
February 18, 2021: Madigan resigns from the Illinois House of Representatives, ending his decades-long tenure.
February 22, 2021: He steps down as Chair of the Democratic Party of Illinois.
March 2, 2022: Madigan is indicted on federal racketeering and bribery charges, accused of leading a "criminal enterprise" to enhance his political power and financial well-being.
October 14, 2022: AT&T agrees to pay a $23 million fine to resolve a federal criminal investigation into the company's efforts to unlawfully influence Madigan.
May 2, 2023: The "ComEd Four" are convicted in a bribery scheme linked to Madigan, though he was not a defendant in this trial.
February, 12, 2024: Tim Mapes, Madigan's former chief of staff, sentenced to 2.5 years in prison for perjury after lying to a grand jury about his knowledge of sexual harassment allegations against a colleague.
October 9, 2024: Jury selection begins for Madigan's federal corruption trial in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
October 17, 2024: A full jury is seated after a thorough selection process.
October 21, 2024: Opening statements are delivered in the trial. Prosecutors allege that Madigan exploited public trust by using his political influence to benefit utility companies in exchange for kickbacks and favors for his associates.
November 15, 2024: Former Chicago Alderman Danny Solis testifies, revealing he cooperated with federal investigators and secretly recorded conversations with Madigan as part of the investigation.
December 9, 2024: Solis concludes his testimony after 21 hours over six days.
December 18, 2024: The prosecution rests its case after presenting evidence, including secretly recorded conversations and testimony from key witnesses.
January 8, 2025: The defense begins presenting its case, calling its first witnesses.
January 13, 2025: Madigan testifies in his own defense, denying any wrongdoing and emphasizing his commitment to his constituents.
January 16, 2025: The defense rests its case after seven days of testimony.
January 22, 2025: Closing arguments begin, with the prosecution presenting their case.
January 28, 2025: Defense wraps up closing arguments, and the case is handed over to the jury.
January 29, 2025: Jury deliberations begin in Madigan's federal corruption trial.
February 12, 2025: Jury convicts Madigan on 10 counts, finds him not guilty on seven and deadlocks on six.
June 9, 2025: Judge to make decision on Madigan's money forfeiture.
June 13, 2025: Madigan is set to be sentenced.
The Source
The information in this article was obtained from federal court documents and previous FOX 32 reporting.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
31 minutes ago
- USA Today
Congress introduces bill addressing national guidelines for college sports
Congress introduces bill addressing national guidelines for college sports With the settlement of three athlete-compensation antitrust cases against the NCAA and the Power Five conferences having received final approval from a federal district judge on June 6, members of the U.S. House of Representatives have moved into action with new legislative proposals regarding national rules for college sports. On Wednesday, June 10, Reps. Lisa McClain, R-Mich., and Janelle Bynum, D-Ore., introduced a bill that comes shortly after Reps. Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla., and Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., circulated a discussion draft of a bill that would largely put into federal law the terms and new rules-making structure of the settlement. The discussion draft is set to be the centerpiece of a hearing June 11 by a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Bilirakis, who has been involved in previous college-sports bill efforts, chairs the subcommittee. Guthrie chairs the full committee. The bill – in addition to being a bi-partisan presentation – continues recent work related to college sports from McClain, who is the current House Republican Conference chair. That makes her the GOP's No. 4-ranking member in the House. In April, McClain introduced a bill that would prevent college athletes from being employees of their schools, conferences or an athletic association. The discussion draft – as posted on Congress' general resource site, - includes language that specifically would allow the NCAA, and potentially the new Collegiate Sports Commission, to make rules in areas that have come into legal dispute in recent years and in areas that the NCAA wants to shield from legal dispute. The discussion draft, first reported on by The Washington Post, also includes language that would require most Division I schools to provide a series of benefits for athletes that are currently called for under NCAA and some conferences' rules but do not have the force of federal law. In addition, the discussion draft includes a 'placeholder' section for language that likely would be connected to providing antitrust or other legal protection for various provisions. According the discussion draft, an 'interstate collegiate athletic association' would be able to 'establish and enforce rules relating to … the manner in which … student athletes may be recruited' to play sports; 'the transfer of a student athlete between institutions'; and 'the number of seasons or length of time for which a student athlete is eligible to compete, academic standards, and code of conduct'. The NCAA's rules regarding when recruits can be offered money in exchange for the use of their name, image and likeness; athletes' ability to freely transfer; and the number of seasons in which they are eligible to compete all of have been – or currently are being – addressed in federal and state courts across the country. That has raised concerns for NCAA officials about the future of rules such as those concerning academic eligibility requirements The discussion draft also includes language that would require most Division I schools to provide a series of benefits for athletes that are currently called for under NCAA and some conferences' rules but do not have the force of law. These include medical coverage for athletically related injuries for at least two years after the conclusion of an athlete's career; guaranteed financial aid that would allow an athlete to complete an undergraduate degree; and 'an administrative structure that provides independent medical care and affirms the unchallengeable autonomous authority of primary athletics health care providers (team physicians and athletic trainers) to determine medical management and return-to-play decisions related to student athletes.'
CNBC
31 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump's 'big beautiful' spending bill could make it harder to claim this low-income tax credit
As Senate Republicans debate President Donald Trump's "big beautiful bill", a lesser-known provision from the House-approved package could make it harder to claim a low-income tax credit. If enacted as written, the House measure in the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" would require precertification of each qualifying child for filers claiming the so-called earned income tax credit, or EITC, starting in 2028. Under current law, taxpayers claim the EITC on their tax return — including Schedule EIC for qualifying children. The provision aims to "avoid duplicative and other erroneous claims," according to the bill's text. But policy experts say the new rules would burden eligible filers, who may forgo the EITC as a result. The measure could also delay tax refunds for those filers, particularly amid IRS cutbacks, experts say. More from Personal Finance:Job market is 'trash' right now, career coach says — here's whyWhat a 'revenge tax' in Trump's spending bill could mean for investorsWhat Trump's plan to slash Pell Grant to lowest level in a decade means for you "You're going to flood the IRS with all these [EITC] documents," said Janet Holtzblatt, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. "It's just not clear how they're going to process all this information." Holtzblatt, who has pushed to simplify the EITC for decades, wrote a critique of the proposed precertification last week. "This is not a new idea, but was previously considered, studied and rejected for very good reasons," Greg Leiserson, a senior fellow at the Tax Law Center at New York University Law, wrote about the proposal in late May. Studies during the George W. Bush administration found an EITC precertification process reduced EITC claims for eligible filers, Leiserson wrote. During the study, precertification also yielded a lower return on investment compared to existing EITC enforcement, such as audits, he wrote. One of the key benefits of the EITC is the tax break is "refundable," meaning you can still claim the credit and get a refund with zero taxes owed. That's valuable for lower earners who don't have a tax bill, experts say. To qualify, you need "earned income," or wages from work. The income phase-outs depend on your "qualifying children," based on four IRS tests. "Eligibility is complicated," and residency requirements for qualifying children often cause errors, said Holtzblatt with the Tax Policy Center. For 2025, the tax break is worth up to $8,046 for eligible families. You can claim the maximum EITC with adjusted gross income up to $61,555 for single filers and $68,675 for married couples filing jointly. These phase-outs apply to families with three or more children. As of December 2024, about 23 million workers received the EITC for tax year 2022, according to the IRS. But 1 in 5 eligible taxpayers don't claim the tax break, the agency estimates. Nine Democratic Senators last week voiced concerns about the House-approved EITC changes in a letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. If enacted, the updates would "further complicate the EITC's existing challenges and make it more difficult to claim," the lawmakers wrote. Higher earners are more likely to face an audit, but EITC claimants have a 5.5 times higher audit rate than the rest of U.S. filers, partly due to improper payments, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center. The proposed EITC change, among other House provisions, still need Senate approval, and it's unclear how the measure could change. However, under the reconciliation process, Senate Republicans only need a simple majority to advance the bill.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Congress introduces bill addressing national guidelines for college sports
With the settlement of three athlete-compensation antitrust cases against the NCAA and the Power Five conferences having received final approval from a federal district judge on June 6, members of the U.S. House of Representatives have moved into action with new legislative proposals regarding national rules for college sports. On Wednesday, June 10, Reps. Lisa McClain, R-Mich., and Janelle Bynum, D-Ore., introduced a bill that comes shortly after Reps. Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla., and Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., circulated a discussion draft of a bill that would largely put into federal law the terms and new rules-making structure of the settlement. Advertisement The discussion draft is set to be the centerpiece of a hearing June 11 by a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Bilirakis, who has been involved in previous college-sports bill efforts, chairs the subcommittee. Guthrie chairs the full committee. The bill – in addition to being a bi-partisan presentation – continues recent work related to college sports from McClain, who is the current House Republican Conference chair. That makes her the GOP's No. 4-ranking member in the House. In April, McClain introduced a bill that would prevent college athletes from being employees of their schools, conferences or an athletic association. The discussion draft – as posted on Congress' general resource site, - includes language that specifically would allow the NCAA, and potentially the new Collegiate Sports Commission, to make rules in areas that have come into legal dispute in recent years and in areas that the NCAA wants to shield from legal dispute. The discussion draft, first reported on by The Washington Post, also includes language that would require most Division I schools to provide a series of benefits for athletes that are currently called for under NCAA and some conferences' rules but do not have the force of federal law. Advertisement In addition, the discussion draft includes a 'placeholder' section for language that likely would be connected to providing antitrust or other legal protection for various provisions. According the discussion draft, an 'interstate collegiate athletic association' would be able to 'establish and enforce rules relating to … the manner in which … student athletes may be recruited' to play sports; 'the transfer of a student athlete between institutions'; and 'the number of seasons or length of time for which a student athlete is eligible to compete, academic standards, and code of conduct'. The NCAA's rules regarding when recruits can be offered money in exchange for the use of their name, image and likeness; athletes' ability to freely transfer; and the number of seasons in which they are eligible to compete all of have been – or currently are being – addressed in federal and state courts across the country. That has raised concerns for NCAA officials about the future of rules such as those concerning academic eligibility requirements The discussion draft also includes language that would require most Division I schools to provide a series of benefits for athletes that are currently called for under NCAA and some conferences' rules but do not have the force of law. Advertisement These include medical coverage for athletically related injuries for at least two years after the conclusion of an athlete's career; guaranteed financial aid that would allow an athlete to complete an undergraduate degree; and 'an administrative structure that provides independent medical care and affirms the unchallengeable autonomous authority of primary athletics health care providers (team physicians and athletic trainers) to determine medical management and return-to-play decisions related to student athletes.' This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Congress introduces college sports bill proposing national rules
