* The Chicago Tribune published yet another series of stories about House Speaker Michael Madigan’s power. But like past investigation, some of this series is a bit of a stretch.
For instance…
Chicago’s largest operator of assisted living homes for the poor was looking to grow its business when it decided to add a new member to its legal team: the law firm of House Speaker Michael Madigan.
Within months of that decision, the most powerful lawmaker in Illinois and the chamber he controls voted in 2005 to create a state program that would send tens of millions of dollars to his new client. […]
There are other tax lawyers to see in Chicago. But nothing gets done in Springfield without Madigan, who wields unilateral control over the movement of every bill in the House.
That was true in 2005, when a coalition came to the state Legislature seeking to turn a pilot project on assisted living homes for the poor into what is now the permanent Supportive Living Program.
A founding member of that coalition was Pathway Senior Living LLC, Chicago’s largest developer of such homes.
The idea was to save money by moving the most able-bodied nursing home patients into these less expensive facilities where they could get the help they need at 60 percent of the Medicaid cost to taxpayers. It was supported by advocates for the poor and politicians from both parties.
Pathway and other companies wanted to expand, but investment money and state incentives were hard to come by because of the tenuous nature of the pilot program.
At about the same time, Pathway, which has long used another law firm for all its property tax business, hired Madigan’s firm for a single Chicago property. Public records show Madigan’s firm filed its first paperwork on behalf of the company on April 12, 2005.
On May 20, Madigan and the House voted 113-0 to create the permanent program.
* OK, to the bill in question. The legislation was introduced in the Senate on February 24, 2005 by Sen. Kwame Raoul (D-Chicago). Raoul is not exactly known as a tool of the Madigan machine. The bill passed the Senate on April 8th, four days before that paperwork was filed. Then the House voted unanimously in favor of it.
Too often in journalism, particularly at the Tribune, correlation is causation. But that bill was a measure supported by Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s administration, and RRB was never an MJM fan.
* Back to the Tribune…
Pharmacies face cuts in drug reimbursements under the legislation, but lawmakers largely went with the industry’s own suggestions for trimming rather than harsher proposals.
Supportive living homes and nursing homes face rate cuts, but they are lower than first proposed. The supportive living industry got some protection against potentially damaging changes in eligibility rules. And nursing homes won concessions on new rules to increase staffing.
As subscribers already know, pharmacies negotiated their own cuts months ago, but then got whacked again by the new bill. They are hardly winners here.
And pretty much every provider ended up with cuts that were lower than first proposed by Gov. Pat Quinn. Physicians have no cuts at all, and that’s mainly because the House Republicans (who get tons of campaign cash from the docs) stood up for them. Hospitals avoided huge cuts. And the AP claimed nursing homes were a big session loser.
* Now, on to the banks. Madigan’s property tax law firm represents Bank of America, which would’ve taken a very big hit if this bill had passed…
In addition to stopping that legislation, the other priority for the banking industry this legislative session was to pass a measure that would allow them to much more quickly foreclose on and dump abandoned properties from their books. In an effort to win over critics, the banks offered to pay more to help cities around the state maintain abandoned homes.
The bank-backed bill passed the Senate after weeks of closed-door meetings but stalled in the House Rules Committee. Lawmakers and advocates who opposed it credited Madigan, saying he didn’t think it raised enough money from big banks for the foreclosure funds.
Then, on the final day of the session, Yarbrough countered with her own version of the fast-track bill. It would raise twice the money — an estimated $50 million — to help municipalities and fund foreclosure counseling services. But it would only impose higher fees on the very largest banks, which have at least $10 billion in assets.
Smaller community banks and credit unions would be spared, and their lobbying association joined housing advocates in supporting it. The Illinois Bankers Association, which was representing the interests of bigger banks, opposed it.
Yarbrough said Madigan, who voted for the bill, provided counsel and was involved in the process nearly the entire time. “He held my hand all the way,” she said.
She said she wasn’t aware it helped some Madigan banking clients and said Madigan didn’t come up with the idea to exclude community banks from the bill. She said those ideas came from housing advocates who were assisting her with the bill and added that Madigan was an advocate for her concerns this session.
But Madigan also represents small, community banks, so he’s made to wear the jacket, even though the bill passed the House and stalled in the Senate. I was at that House committee hearing (I needed to talk to a committee member about another issue, so I was staking him out and watched the hearing), and a BoA lobbyist testified against it. That’s a very big MJM client, so I’m not sure what the problem is here.
Banks, like hospitals, are in every legislative district and are usually run by some of the most important people in those districts. Beating them ain’t easy, to say the least.
* The overall point of the series is that Madigan is a walking conflict of interest. He’s all-powerful and has grown personally wealthy by using that power to his own advantage. No argument there.
Madigan’s response…
No state benefit is ever offered to gain a client and any potential client who seeks a state benefit is not accepted.
If a client of the law office requests my intercession with a state agency, I refuse; and
If a client of the law office expresses an interest in legislation such as to create a conflict of interest, I recuse myself from consideration of the bill.
In real-world politics, you never specifically ask for a quid pro quo. Ever. That’s what got Blagojevich in trouble. You just assume that you’re buying good will and let it go at that. Madigan would toss an idiot out his window if he offered to sign up with the law firm in exchange for a Springfield benefit.
Bank of America is, according to the Tribune, a Madigan client. BoA lobbyist Pat Holden testified against the foreclosure bill, so shouldn’t that have created a conflict of interest?
* Dawn Clark Netsch tosses in her two cents…
“Power and secrecy are a potentially lethal, or at least an unhealthy, combination. Too much secrecy is absolutely wrong whether or not it’s combined with as much power as one individual has.
“I think there could be a much clearer definition of what constitutes a conflict of interest. That could be more precisely defined.
“Everything ought to be out on the table. Does that stop it from happening? No. But I think at least it provides the basic information that it seems to me citizens have a right to have in evaluating their elected representatives.”
More openness would obviously be better.
* Now, on to campaigns. I told subscribers months before the primary that Madigan’s organization would be backing Aurora Ald. Stephanie Kifowit over two other primary opponents. The Tribune finally reported on it this week like it was some great revelation…
And because Madigan controls both a state staff and a campaign war chest, he has a ready reserve of public employees he shifts off the payroll at will to add muscle to the most powerful election force in the state.
Decremer and other Democratic staffers are deployed to answer phone calls, schedule campaign events and scour petitions of competing Democrats to get them kicked off the ballot.
Republicans also have pulled dozens of staffers off the state payroll in election years, but after nearly 30 years as speaker, Madigan is the master at using the levers of government to his political advantage.
So, everybody does it and Madigan is the best and that makes it particularly bad. OK. But the Tribune does point out the consequences of using state staffers for campaigns…
During the March primary season, records show, nearly two dozen state staffers went off the state payroll, being paid instead by Madigan’s political funds to work for more than 30 candidates. In many of the less competitive races, the staffers worked for less than a day, simply checking to see if a Madigan-backed candidate had any opponents. In nearly half of the races, which were more competitive, the staffers worked for weeks at a time. […]
Soon after the primary campaign was done, Decremer and other Madigan staffers were back at work in Springfield.
Decremer is a fixture at major committee meetings and can often be seen in the House chamber conferring with top Madigan lieutenants. He also moves easily through the aisles and to the desks of rank-and-file lawmakers, chatting some up and checking over the shoulders of others.
In Illinois, it’s all one thing. And it’s not just Madigan or Madigan’s staff, either. It’s everybody. He just does it better, and has done it better for longer than anyone else.
- Steve Bartin - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 11:20 am:
Mike Madigan is a poster child of what’s wrong with Illinois. He’s leveraged up his power to eliminate the basic Anglo-American concept of separation of powers. His law firm business is icing on the cake. Madigan proves that a politically run , slow growth economy, is the road to riches for politicians as opposed to a competitive high growth economy. More taxes and more regulations mean more campaign contributions for Madigan and anti-free market politicians. Mike Madigan is a plague on Illinois. Madigan’s district is bought off for life with tax dollars from other parts of the state. That’s why term limits are essential. We don’t need anymore Mike Madigans. Illinois is destined to lose at least one seat in the next census in 2020 and Mike Madigan will be a major reason why.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 11:29 am:
These Tribbie stories sure take the long way around the barn. My head hurts from trying to find the point.
Is the point, if there is one, that Madigan is corrupt and sells his office for his law clients? If so, can you just come out and say so, with a few facts, and save the forests of newsprint dedicated to wandering around the subject?
If Madigan is a crook, I guess St. Patrick of Fitzgerald isn’t the Second Coming. I imagine he took a little look-see at Madigan over the years, with all the resources of the national government. Or maybe Fitz is in on it, too. I’m sure Kass will be all over it.
- reformer - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 11:37 am:
The Trib could’ve looked at a GOP staffer who jumps on and off the state payroll too, but decided to focus only on Shaw. Which suggests an agenda, just like its focus on bills of interest to Madigan clients.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 11:45 am:
I agree that Mike Madigan is the poster child of what’s wrong with Illinois. (And thanks again Gov. Quinn, for passing that absurd faux populist cutback amendment to give Madigan more power.)
But I’m also bothered by Kass appropriating the Madigan = Emperor Palpatine meme we’ve been working on here, without attribution.
- King Louis XVI - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 11:48 am:
–Mike Madigan is a poster child of what’s wrong with Illinois.–
Steve Bartin is a poster child of what’s wrong with ignorant commentators.
Madigan’s effectiveness as both speaker and a lawyer driven by both intelligence and hard work is twisted–no libeled–into accusations of corruption by those too dim-witted, too envious, too lacking imagination to match his professional or political prowess.
A few more Mike Madigans and fewer goofs like the raving Mike Bost is what Illinois needs.
- Ace Laredo - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 11:55 am:
But wouldn’t all those competing Madigan doppelgangers endlessly battle each other for supremacy, leaving a smoking carcass of Illinois?
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 12:00 pm:
===He just does it better, and has done it better for longer than anyone else.===
Exactly. It’s hard work and nobody works harder than Madigan. If his opponents did less complaining and more working, they might have a chance at competing with him. But it’s easier to complain, so that’s what we get. Sour grapes and envy and ominous sounding “investigative journalism” from the Tribune.
If you want to curtail his power, start by working as hard as he does.
- Shore - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 12:00 pm:
You left out the “and one more thing” Kass column hammering the story home this am. I’m not a Madigan fan by any stretch, but these stories read like sour grapes. The guy has mastered the political system. Period. Patrick Fitzgerald spent 11 years in the US attorneys office, brought down 2 Governors, never moved on Madigan, should be the story. This is like liberal publications complaining about what walker did in wisconsin or what the koch brothers did to support the effort, they played by the rules and did it better. end of story.
It won’t make any difference in november because springfield republicans are too incompetent to take him out and if the economy improves by 2014, he’s probably in like flynn for however long he wants to be.
- mark walker - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 12:06 pm:
The Trib is great at making general political claims, while presenting specific cases that don’t come close to supporting their arguments.
So one bill passed 113-0, meaning Madigan also controls all Republican votes as well. Sure thing.
And a bill impacts a wide range of his firm’s clients differently, so when it passes and helps BofA and other big banks, it’s Madigan’s fault for supposedly supporting clients, and if the same bill fails and helps small banks, it’s still Madigan’s fault for supposedly supporting the other clients.
Trib: Let’s see some real examples, after all these years, or get back to work.
Dawn Clark Netsch makes sense about power and secrecy.
- Belle - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 12:09 pm:
I can respect his abilities but not agree with his methods or decisions. He has worked hard while skating at the very edges of what is legal, it is ok for him to take ownership of the entire state?
After all, it is only a tiny minority of the state that re-elects him every term while he seems to rule all of us.
- lincoln's beard - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 12:12 pm:
I’d just like to note that “separation of powers” is much more American than Anglo-American, since the British (and most former Commonwealth countries) have a parliamentary system.
What we have in Illinois is a General Assembly run more like a Parliament. The party apparatus has strong authority to slate candidates and enforce party discipline. This is *not* atypical worldwide. In fact, it’s completely typical. What is atypical is that our legislature is bicameral, and that our prime minister (Madigan) isn’t also the head of the executive.
- cermak_rd - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 12:21 pm:
Belle, that’s like arguing that Boehner or Pelosi or O’Neill was only elected by a small district and should not determine the legislative agenda for the entire nation. It’s the way the system has been set up to work.
- King Louis XVI - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 12:25 pm:
–He has worked hard while skating at the very edges of what is legal–
Typically, in the United States, to adhere to the law is neither a crime nor a criteria for corruption. Except for Mike Madigan.
There is no logic to the haters.
They want to chop off Madigan’s head because he is powerful – that’s the chief indictment against him.
And it’s principally made by those too dull to outsmart him.
- Cheryl44 - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 12:43 pm:
If I lived in Madigan’s district, there’s no way I would ever vote for anyone else.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 12:51 pm:
–He has worked hard while skating at the very edges of what is legal, it is ok for him to take ownership of the entire state?–
What does that even mean?
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 1:01 pm:
–He’s leveraged up his power to eliminate the basic Anglo-American concept of separation of powers.–
Hilarious. And hysterical.
- Kevin Highland - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 1:08 pm:
In Illinois, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House have both been vested with a level of power that at best hinders and at worst prevents the work of the people from being done.
I am unsure how to fix this problem since the solutions would never get past these two individuals!
- builder bob - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 1:11 pm:
listen, I dont care how powerful he is, lets just look at the results. The State is in the toilet, and he lead us there. Smart, hardworking, whatever… he’s responsible for the mess we are in and I only hope those that can - vote him out as soon as possible.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 1:17 pm:
–listen, I dont care how powerful he is, lets just look at the results. The State is in the toilet, and he lead us there. Smart, hardworking, whatever… he’s responsible for the mess we are in and I only hope those that can - vote him out as soon as possible.–
Another victim heard from.
By that childish logic, I guess Madigan gets credit for the state’s $650M GDP.
Because he controls everything. Must be exhausting, controlling everything, all the time.
- titan - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 1:36 pm:
@ King Louis XVI - “They want to chop off Madigan’s head because he is powerful – that’s the chief indictment against him.
And it’s principally made by those too dull to outsmart him.”
Say what one wishes about the Speaker (it’s a free country and all), but he got where he got by the great American way of (a) being smarter/craftier/sharper than almost everyone else and (b) working harder/paying better attention to the details than almost everyone else. He surrounds himself with similarly inclined people too (like Mr. Decramer).
- Shore - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 1:39 pm:
much as I love the tribune’s bashing of springfield democrats team madigan have mastered their craft. the “great alternative” is of course tom cross who so far has shown the state he’s not a primetime player or an even almost ready to be primetime player. No ideas from him, no vision, no plan, no consistent talking points. the only message that broke through of republicans from springfield since 2010 is the outburst from the state rep. wisconsin republicans are having their way in a state a gop presidential candidate hasn’t won since 1984 and Illinois republicans can’t even make madigan sweat.
tomorrows question of the day should be-which will come first-winning baseball from the cubs, an offensive line from the bears, or competent political leadership from springfield republicans?
- TwoFeetThick - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 1:41 pm:
=== If Madigan is a crook, I guess St. Patrick of Fitzgerald isn’t the Second Coming. I imagine he took a little look-see at Madigan over the years, with all the resources of the national government.===
Indeed, Fitz did take a close look at Madigan’s operation, in the early 2000’s when he brought down Lee Daniels, Mike Tristano, and was on his way to taking down Ryan. I think he checked into all four legislative leaders and their staffs. Madigan was exonerated and the investigation was closed.
So, that proves Fitzgerald was in on it. Obviously.
- Anon - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 1:56 pm:
==In Illinois, it’s all one thing. And it’s not just Madigan or Madigan’s staff, either. It’s everybody. He just does it better, and has done it better for longer than anyone else.==
So, any solutions? Any solutions needed in your view?
MJM’s chippy response to the Trib:
==Madigan declined to be interviewed but issued this statement about the Tribune’s examination: “The overall approach looks like more garbage from the two garbage haulers who work for a bankrupt company.”==
One thing for sure about MJM: He ain’t bankrupt.
Seems a little testy though.
- Standard Alias-Using Madigan Defender/Staffer/Lobbyist - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 2:14 pm:
1. If you don’t like it, work harder and smarter and take his power.
2. He is not all powerful, because the legislative excesses and/or inactivity we all suffer from are not his fault.
3. He is the only one who stood up to Blagojevich thus saving this state from Armageddon (forget the whole signing off as Chair on campaign #2 thing)
4. He is a brilliant man; everyone else is an idiot.
5. He can only do so much with the cards he is dealt (no, you’re wrong, he’s not the one dealing the cards).
6. He is right, you are wrong. He is a genius who who outworks everyone. But when things aren’t done properly it’s not his fault. Because he is a gift to this state. And I won’t mention any conflicts because he says there aren’t any.
This time I’ll just pick Number 6 and be done with it. I don’t feel like working through 1 through 5 all day.
- Anon - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 2:54 pm:
What would need to happen for Illinois to implement term limits for state legislators?
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 3:07 pm:
I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess that the Chicago Tribune supported Pat Quinn’s cutback amendment, which dramatically reduced the size of the Illinois House, increased its partisanship, and concentrated power in the hands of the Speaker.
Physician, heal thyself.
- amalia - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 3:13 pm:
the anecdote about the Madigan staffer and the photo was just creepy.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 3:22 pm:
amalia, campaign operatives do all sorts of creepy things to each other.
- Shore - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 3:22 pm:
after either the 06 or 08 you posted a column written by aaron chambers talking about why the state gop always loses. perhaps the tribune instead of running the 1.3 billionth story on why democrats win should start running stories on why brady, cross, radongo, et al 10 years after the george ryan debacle can’t even come close to the kind of state takeover the way wisco gop’ers did. It’s tiring to read this stuff, madigan is good, we get it, the question is why can’t these springfield republicans that whine year in year out about chicago do what their peers in ohio, indiana, michigan, pennsylvania et al have done.
- Sideliner - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 4:10 pm:
#6 works for me too.
- reformer - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 6:40 pm:
== What would need to happen for Illinois to implement term limits for state legislators? ==
The General Assembly would have to vote — by a three-fifths majority — to put a term limit amendment on the ballot. Then voters would ratify it. Except that first step will never happen.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 6:50 pm:
Or con-con could be passed by the voters when it is on the ballot — once every 20 years — and the change could be made then.
Note also that an initiative can put an amendment on the ballot if it has to do with a structural or procedural subject relating to the Legislature. Term limits may not fit that bill:
SECTION 3. CONSTITUTIONAL INITIATIVE FOR LEGISLATIVE ARTICLE
Amendments to Article IV of this Constitution may be proposed by a petition signed by a number of electors equal in number to at least eight percent of the total votes cast for candidates for Governor in the preceding gubernatorial
election. Amendments shall be limited to structural and procedural subjects contained in Article IV. A petition shall contain the text of the proposed amendment and the date of the general election at which the proposed amendment is to be submitted, shall have been signed by the petitioning electors not more than twenty-four months preceding that general election and shall be filed with the Secretary of State at least six months before that general election. The procedure
for determining the validity and sufficiency of a petition shall be provided by law. If the petition is valid and sufficient, the proposed amendment shall be submitted to the electors at that general election and shall become effective
if approved by either three-fifths of those voting on the amendment or a majority of those voting in the election.
- Newspaper publish what the readers want - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 7:15 pm:
So Michael Madigan is the axis of evil? I live in his district and I’ve found him to be insightful, available, interested in helping his district. It’s amazing that all these people have such a problem with him. He represents his district and does a great job as Speaker getting things done. I shudder to think of the day he is not here. He is definitely the “adult” in the room on a regular basis. I’m thinking people are jealous and envious of his success. Hmmmmm, get up earlier, work harder and get the job done!
- Indeedy - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 8:31 pm:
@Word—
“By that childish logic, I guess Madigan gets credit for the state’s $650M GDP.”
I’m pretty sure that’s $650,000M, aka $650B. As for the logic, it’s not so childish. The legislature can increase tax rates and impact GDP, but it’s more on the margin and sometimes only for a limited time. But when the legislature defines pension terms and funding . . . there is no other economy, per se, to negotiate or dilute the cost. So yeah, I’d say it’s on legislators and their leaders, with a hearty share owing to the Speaker.
- Ron Gorn - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 9:19 pm:
Mr. Madigan is a hard working and fair person. I personally have a great deal of respect for him. To all the nay sayers, I say, you have never seen him work or witnessed his concern for the people he represents.
- Michelle Flaherty - Wednesday, Jun 6, 12 @ 9:41 pm:
Going all the way back to King Louis’s comments,
can you imagine how awesome session would be with 118 Mike Madigan’s in the House?
contemplate it for a moment. The gesticulation alone would be mind blowing.
- Objective Analyst - Thursday, Jun 7, 12 @ 1:58 am:
The Tribune completely misses the point. The only one who gets it is builder bob. Madigan has largely been in control when the State’s finances went to ruin. He’s not 100% responsible, but nobody has had more power for a longer time (30+ years) than Madigan. We are in the 2nd worst shape of any state after California. To not attribute a good part of that to Mike’s iron fisted control is to bury your head in the sand