* Assistant U.S. Attorney Amarjeet S. Bhachu during redirect with the prosecution’s star witness, former ComEd VP Fidel Marquez…
Bhachu trying to combat the idea this was all legal lobbying: Q: Did you plead guilty to lobbying? Marquez: No Q: So when a public official asks for a person to be hired, is that lobbying? Marquez: No.
It was not lobbying, according the Marquez. It was buying influence. Distinction without a difference? That’ll be up to the jury.
I think the prosecution opened with a strong showing of how ComEd bent over backwards to give Madigan everything he wanted and McClain’s pestering really underscores it.
Well see what else they have, but the tapes have done damage to the defendants, particularly McClain and Prammagiore.
This has bothered me since that scorching hot day of the ComEd presser by the USA.
To say lobbying as a craft and profession is under “scrutiny” is comically true, even up to the “how” and “what” lobbying actually means.
The mark of a good (legally focused and rule following) lobbyist must include;
* access and knowledge of the legislation process
* access and knowledge of legislators
* access and knowledge of the executive, including agency leaders
You hire a lobbyist for access and knowledge.
The minute a “fortune 500” company decides that their lobbyists should be a bunch of 20 year old “fresh faced” types who call legislators by their given names and not their “known” names and couldn’t tell you who’s the legislative aide for any given legislator, that’s a “fortune 500” company that will be left behind.
Is the USA saying how far and what is “access and knowledge” too?
Can a lawyer and lobbyist now be “too qualified to be honest” as a lobbyist?
If these four broke actual laws, prosecute them as they are, gain convictions on these four for laws broken.
If it’s an “ethics” cloud that the USA to smell fishy to get convictions on real, truthful ethics lapses, what exactly is gained by those convictions to the culture?
OW is right in the sense that America has been letting “lobbying” slide directly towards “bribery” for decades. It didn’t help that the SCOTUS decided in McDonnell that you need to prove specific qui pro quo, tying a specific payment to a specific action. Just constantly providing free stuff with an understanding that you will likely get better treatment wasn’t enough for a federal conviction.
Lobbying should be under scrutiny, since these days it appears to be mostly bribery and handing people pre-drafted bills that legislators barely read.
===Just constantly providing free stuff with an understanding that you will likely get better treatment wasn’t enough for a federal conviction.===
What about direct cash payments without doing any work for connected friends of the politician?
If it was illegal with organized crime was doing it, I don’t know if we should say it is okay when an elected official does it.
The evidence against them literally is one of the people on trial admitting that he is paying people to do nothing for no reason other than he was told that it was what his friend wanted.
This isn’t exactly taking the legislator out to dinner, or on an educational trip to the Bahamas. This is putting someone on the payroll to collect cash to do nothing. If that’s a legal thing for a legislator to demand or for a company to offer then I think we have an immediate need for new federal legislation.
Was there a quid pro quo? I get that this is all *wink wink* *nudge nudge*, but that’s the crux of it. Networking is a thing, making recommendations is a thing, and it’s fine. It’s the strings that may or may not go along with that “recommendation” that are corrupt. And businesses, lobbyists, and politicians do everything they can to make that line, the line between “innocuous” small talk about their lives or friends and family and asking for a bribe, as blurry as possible. I don’t think there’s a clear cut line, and that alone is a problem. Ethically they shouldn’t even be getting close to it, it shouldn’t be a question of whether or not it was legal.
I’ve been following the trial coverage obsessively, as well as staying glued to Rich’s invaluable live feed from the courtroom.
The tapes and e-mails reveal it went well past wink wink nudge nudge. McClain’s “job recommendations” were orders to be followed, not recommendations. As far as ComEd was concerned, they either did what McClain demanded, or they would have trouble in Springfield.
That’s what this case is about and i think the prosecutors are doing a good job of convincing the jury that ComEd was being strongly pressured to do things so that their legislative agenda was successful.
I don’t think they need to show specific strings. The whole thing was a years long conspiracy to trade hiring to secure legislative goals. That’s why these defendants are on trial.
It would be interesting to know how many jobs requested from the Speaker were turned down. So far I have only seen Bobby Rush’s kid denied a job and that had a unique reason
- 47th Ward - Monday, Apr 3, 23 @ 1:48 pm:
It was not lobbying, according the Marquez. It was buying influence. Distinction without a difference? That’ll be up to the jury.
I think the prosecution opened with a strong showing of how ComEd bent over backwards to give Madigan everything he wanted and McClain’s pestering really underscores it.
Well see what else they have, but the tapes have done damage to the defendants, particularly McClain and Prammagiore.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Apr 3, 23 @ 1:55 pm:
This has bothered me since that scorching hot day of the ComEd presser by the USA.
To say lobbying as a craft and profession is under “scrutiny” is comically true, even up to the “how” and “what” lobbying actually means.
The mark of a good (legally focused and rule following) lobbyist must include;
* access and knowledge of the legislation process
* access and knowledge of legislators
* access and knowledge of the executive, including agency leaders
You hire a lobbyist for access and knowledge.
The minute a “fortune 500” company decides that their lobbyists should be a bunch of 20 year old “fresh faced” types who call legislators by their given names and not their “known” names and couldn’t tell you who’s the legislative aide for any given legislator, that’s a “fortune 500” company that will be left behind.
Is the USA saying how far and what is “access and knowledge” too?
Can a lawyer and lobbyist now be “too qualified to be honest” as a lobbyist?
If these four broke actual laws, prosecute them as they are, gain convictions on these four for laws broken.
If it’s an “ethics” cloud that the USA to smell fishy to get convictions on real, truthful ethics lapses, what exactly is gained by those convictions to the culture?
- Homebody - Monday, Apr 3, 23 @ 2:28 pm:
OW is right in the sense that America has been letting “lobbying” slide directly towards “bribery” for decades. It didn’t help that the SCOTUS decided in McDonnell that you need to prove specific qui pro quo, tying a specific payment to a specific action. Just constantly providing free stuff with an understanding that you will likely get better treatment wasn’t enough for a federal conviction.
Lobbying should be under scrutiny, since these days it appears to be mostly bribery and handing people pre-drafted bills that legislators barely read.
- Just Me 2 - Monday, Apr 3, 23 @ 2:58 pm:
It should be understood and not mentioned that Madigan does not “ask” for anything.
- Amalia - Monday, Apr 3, 23 @ 3:00 pm:
all that matters is whether McDonnell will influence the jury. it could. but the slippery slope we are hearing on the tapes is just disgusting.
- Candy Dogood - Monday, Apr 3, 23 @ 3:01 pm:
===Just constantly providing free stuff with an understanding that you will likely get better treatment wasn’t enough for a federal conviction.===
What about direct cash payments without doing any work for connected friends of the politician?
If it was illegal with organized crime was doing it, I don’t know if we should say it is okay when an elected official does it.
The evidence against them literally is one of the people on trial admitting that he is paying people to do nothing for no reason other than he was told that it was what his friend wanted.
This isn’t exactly taking the legislator out to dinner, or on an educational trip to the Bahamas. This is putting someone on the payroll to collect cash to do nothing. If that’s a legal thing for a legislator to demand or for a company to offer then I think we have an immediate need for new federal legislation.
- Telly - Monday, Apr 3, 23 @ 3:07 pm:
== So when a public official asks for a person to be hired, is that lobbying? ==
I’d say the real question of the trial is: So when a public official asks for a person to be hired, is that illegal?
- Perrid - Monday, Apr 3, 23 @ 3:28 pm:
Was there a quid pro quo? I get that this is all *wink wink* *nudge nudge*, but that’s the crux of it. Networking is a thing, making recommendations is a thing, and it’s fine. It’s the strings that may or may not go along with that “recommendation” that are corrupt. And businesses, lobbyists, and politicians do everything they can to make that line, the line between “innocuous” small talk about their lives or friends and family and asking for a bribe, as blurry as possible. I don’t think there’s a clear cut line, and that alone is a problem. Ethically they shouldn’t even be getting close to it, it shouldn’t be a question of whether or not it was legal.
- 47th Ward - Monday, Apr 3, 23 @ 3:50 pm:
===Was there a quid pro quo?===
I’ve been following the trial coverage obsessively, as well as staying glued to Rich’s invaluable live feed from the courtroom.
The tapes and e-mails reveal it went well past wink wink nudge nudge. McClain’s “job recommendations” were orders to be followed, not recommendations. As far as ComEd was concerned, they either did what McClain demanded, or they would have trouble in Springfield.
That’s what this case is about and i think the prosecutors are doing a good job of convincing the jury that ComEd was being strongly pressured to do things so that their legislative agenda was successful.
I don’t think they need to show specific strings. The whole thing was a years long conspiracy to trade hiring to secure legislative goals. That’s why these defendants are on trial.
- DuPage Saint - Monday, Apr 3, 23 @ 4:00 pm:
It would be interesting to know how many jobs requested from the Speaker were turned down. So far I have only seen Bobby Rush’s kid denied a job and that had a unique reason