Feds say Madigan tried to block rules at state tax board

A parade of witnesses in Michael Madigan’s recent corruption trial — including Madigan himself — insisted there were airtight protocols in place to avoid any potential conflicts of interest between the powerful Democratic House speaker’s public duties and his private job as a property tax attorney.

But in asking a federal judge to sentence Madigan to 12 ½ years in prison, prosecutors wrote in a lengthy court filing Friday that in reality he was working behind the scenes to exert his unmatched political powers to help his own bottom line.

To boost their point, prosecutors described an alleged episode of backroom political intrigue that was not presented to the jury at trial: the 2018 derailment of a proposal by then-Gov. Bruce Rauner that directly threatened to reduce profits at Madigan’s law firm.

It centered on an executive order that Rauner, a Republican and political archnemesis of Madigan’s, issued in January 2018 prohibiting state legislators and other officials from practicing before the Property Tax Appeal Board — a quasi-judicial body providing taxpayers a state forum to contest a property’s assessment.

In late 2018, the proposed amendment was pending before the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, a bipartisan committee that reviews rules promulgated by various state agencies that governors oversee.

On Nov. 6, 2018, the day Rauner lost his reelection campaign to JB Pritzker, Madigan told his longtime confidant, retired lobbyist Michael McClain, in a wiretapped phone call that the amendment was scheduled for hearing at JCAR’s meeting the next week.

Madigan suggested that McClain send lobbyist John Bradley, a Madigan loyalist and former ranking House Democratic lawmaker, to warn the property tax board chairman that “’there’s gonna be a lawsuit and there’s gonna be depositions,’” according to the filing.

“‘And you’re gonna be asked, ‘Did you take directives from the governor’s office, which is contrary to how the statute reads,” the filing quoted Madigan as saying how Bradley should approach it. “‘You’re supposed to be independent. So why don’t you withdraw that thing? … ‘Get yourself out of trouble.’”

McClain responded, “Yup, will do,” according to the filing.

The conversation marks another instance where Bradley, who was not charged, allegedly had cozy interactions with Madigan.

According to trial testimony, Bradley served as a go-between for do-nothing ComEd contracts and several of the speaker’s allies, and also agreed to send monthly checks to 13th Ward lieutenant Kevin Quinn, the brother of Madigan’s handpicked 13th Ward Ald. Marty Quinn, who had been fired over sexual harassment allegations.

On Nov. 13, 2018, shortly before the JCAR meeting, Bradley told McClain that another intermediary had “completed his mission” and had received a “favorable response,” prosecutors said, describing a wiretapped call that was not played at Madigan’s trial. The name of the other intermediary was blacked out in the filing.

After the meeting, McClain reported to Madigan the good news on the vote, which was unanimous in blocking the Rauner maneuver, according to prosecutors.

“Eleven to zero prohibition on PTAB,” McClain said, according to the government filing. “So, it’s over.”

More Top Picks Health And Fitness

Madigan responded, “Mhm, okay, very good,” according to the filing, which did not spell out why the episode wasn’t presented to the jury.

In their next meeting in early 2019, then-PTAB Chairman Mauro Glorioso reported that JCAR had found the tax board “has no statutory authority to take the action embodied in the rulemaking, and the finding that the rulemaking represents a severe threat to the public interest,” according to meeting minutes posted online.

Glorioso filed a notice of withdrawal of the rulemaking, which passed 5-0, the minutes stated.

Glorioso, a Republican attorney from Westchester, did not immediately return calls seeking comment Tuesday.

In their sentencing filing Friday, Madigan’s attorneys asked U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey for a period of probation with some home confinement, citing Madigan’s age, his long record of public service and reputation for honesty and integrity.

Any response from the defense to what prosecutors alleged in their filing is due Friday.

At trial, Madigan’s attorneys presented a series of witnesses who all testified that Madigan was careful to avoid any conflicts of interest.

Among them was Madigan himself, who testified in his own defense in January that he routinely recused himself voting on any real estate transfer legislation involving state-owned land, and had his law partner and top staffers constantly combing through potential clients, looking for red flags.

Justin Cox, a former top attorney for the speaker, testified Madigan never voted on land transfer bills even if they dealt with property far from Chicago.

“He would not vote on land transfer bills just to prevent any question of ‘was there a conflict here?’” Cox said. “And that wouldn’t just be for properties in the Cook County area, that would be for properties all across the state.”

Madigan’s former law partner, Vincent “Bud” Getzendanner, testified that potential clients who’d had business with the General Assembly or the House of Representatives would be flagged so the firm would not contract with them.

Beyond those groups, Getzendanner testified, their firm would also avoid working with unions, lobbyists and even nursing homes due to their connections to state government.

Madigan’s attorneys presented communications from Getzendanner showing he shared lists of potential clients who’d been flagged with the speaker’s House staff so they could identify and eliminate any potential conflicts.

In their filing, however, prosecutors said Madigan’s explanation on what Bradley should say to Glorioso was “another example of Madigan priming the listener, the person to whom he is speaking, with seemingly legal or logical reasons to cover the improper personal gains Madigan was trying to secure for himself.”

The jury heard Madigan doing the same thing, prosecutors said, in a videotaped conversation between the speaker and then-Ald. Daniel Solis, who was secretly cooperating with the FBI.

In that video, Madigan pulled Solis aside before a meeting with developers at his law office and scolded him for using the words “quid pro quo” in an earlier phone call. Madigan told Solis, “You’re just recommending our law firm — because if, if they don’t get a good result on the real estate taxes, the whole project would be in trouble. So you want high quality representation.”

“The bogus justification that Madigan articulated for Solis on that occasion was a similar false narrative designed to secure the end Madigan sought to achieve — continuing to use Solis as a source of law firm clients,” prosecutors wrote.

As for Madigan’s use of Bradley and McClain to allegedly do his dirty work, prosecutors said “concealment and secrecy were the hallmarks of Madigan’s conduct.”

“The JCAR incident is one example of how Madigan used intermediaries, or surrogates, to insulate himself and to cause others to dirty their hands on his behalf,” the filing stated. “McClain was Madigan’s lead surrogate for years. McClain willingly allowed Madigan to use him to, in McClain’s words, avoid Madigan’s ‘fingerprints’ being left.”

McClain and Madigan faced trial together. A jury in February deadlocked on all counts related to McClain and delivered a mixed verdict for Madigan, finding the former speaker guilty on 10 of 23 counts but acquitting him on several others. The jury also deadlocked on the marquee charge of racketeering for both Madigan and McClain.

McClain still faces sentencing in July, however, in the related “ComEd Four” bribery conspiracy case.

[email protected]