Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: House votes to remove nine House Republicans from the chamber over refusal to wear masks
Next Post: *** LIVE COVERAGE ***
Posted in:
* WBEZ…
A subsidiary of AT&T led by a former top aide to ex-House Speaker Michael Madigan could face a criminal charge as an apparent offshoot of an ongoing federal investigation into the dethroned Chicago Democrat, the company revealed in a federal regulatory filing.
The telecommunications giant reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission that a consulting contract executed in 2017 by Illinois Bell Telephone Company LLC is the focus of a previously undisclosed federal investigation led by U.S. Attorney John Lausch in Chicago.
* The full SEC disclosure…
Recently, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois informed us that they are considering filing a charge against one of our subsidiaries, Illinois Bell Telephone Company, LLC (Illinois Bell), arising out of a single, nine-month consulting contract in 2017 worth twenty-two thousand five hundred dollars.
Since 2019, Illinois Bell has been cooperating with the U.S. Attorney’s Office concerning their widely reported investigation of certain elected Illinois politicians and related parties for corruption. Based on our own extensive investigation of the facts and our engagement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, we have concluded that the contract at issue was legal in all respects and that any charge against Illinois Bell or its personnel would be without merit. We cannot predict the outcome of the government’s investigation, which could (i) result in criminal penalties, fines, or other remedial measures, (ii) adversely affect our reputation with customers, regulators, and other stakeholders, and (iii) impact our existing federal and state government contracts and our ability to win new contracts in the future.
This could be a lot of things. AT&T’s own lobbying contracts are labeled as consulting contracts.
* Back to WBEZ…
The same day ComEd and Lausch’s office agreed to the deferred prosecution deal, Madigan’s state office received a far-reaching federal subpoena seeking records concerning AT&T, Walgreens, Rush University Medical Center and a host of operatives and lobbyists inside Madigan’s political orbit.
That subpoena sought “any and all contracts, agreements, letters of engagement and correspondence related to the retention, hiring or engagement of any person to provide services, including lobbying, consulting or other services to AT&T of Illinois of any of its parents, subsidiaries or affiliated business entities.”
* In other news, Judge Leinenweber took some action today. Here’s Crain’s..
Former Commonwealth Edison CEO Anne Pramaggiore and three other defendants will face trial after a federal judge today rejected their motions to dismiss the charges.
U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber ruled against several motions aimed at undermining the feds’ charges that the four had participated in ComEd’s admitted scheme to curry favor with former House Speaker Michael Madigan in order to win lucrative state laws over nearly 10 years. […]
They did win one concession from the judge. He agreed that prosecutors should give them more specifics on acts and statements that comprise its conspiracy charge. In addition, he put off ruling on defendants’ demand that prosecutors remove reference in their indictment to actual passage of the laws that ComEd and Exelon supported and which were the alleged focus of the scheme.
* From the ruling…
A bill of particulars is appropriate when the indictment fails to sufficiently apprise the defendant of the offending conduct, and additional information is needed in order for the defendant to be on notice prior to trial. […]
The Court finds less specificity in the conspiracy count. The Government has not provided any notice as to the nature of the false statements for the ongoing, eight-year scheme alleged in Count One. For a complex eight-year conspiracy at a public company, alleging general concealment and false statements, even with some identified example documents, does not allow Defendants to prepare for trial. The Indictment sets these false statements in general terms, alleging Defendants “created and caused the creation of false contracts, invoices and other books and records to disguise the true nature of certain of the payments and to circumvent internal controls.” (Indict. ¶ 3.) Because “[t]here is a good chance that the government will offer at trial false statements and bad acts that are within the scope of one or more of these general allegations,” the Court grants Defendants’ Motion for Particularization as to the false statements requested for Count One.
* And…
Finally, Defendants move to remove the surplusage in the indictment under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(d). Defendants argue that the paragraphs describing the favorable legislation passed in the State of Illinois legislature is too attenuated to the rest of the indictment and may be prejudicial to the jury. The Court finds the Motion to be premature prior to the Government’s presentation of its case-in-chief. The Court denies the Motion, but Defendants may renew it prior to the jury receiving a copy of the Indictment.
* But the very, very bad news for the defendants and for folks who may be acting in the gray area, was in the denial of motions to dismiss…
Defendants take Sun-Diamond’s requirement on specificity and uses it to argue there must be a completeness of understanding between Public Official A and Defendants.
However, the plain text of the statute demonstrates there does not have to be proof that the agent of local government received the illegal gratuity with requisite intent, only that the person attempting to provide the illegal gratuity ‘corruptly gives, offers, or agrees to give’ a thing of value. (”It was not necessary for the government to prove as to these counts that [the legislator] actually received the bribes”). Defendants mistake these components of the law as having interchangeable standards. They do not.
From one of the smartest lawyers I’ve ever known…
His interpretation of 666 means you don’t have to have a quid pro quo. The member doesn’t have to get something specifically. The mere thought someone would do something that could be beneficial, if done so with corrupt motive, would be criminal. If two lobbyists discuss ways to “persuade” a member, that could be illegal. The member doesn’t need to even know about it. Doesn’t have to be tied to a bill. Doesn’t have to be tied to any act.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Feb 17, 22 @ 2:58 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: House votes to remove nine House Republicans from the chamber over refusal to wear masks
Next Post: *** LIVE COVERAGE ***
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I hope the Justice Department picked up whatever probe of Caterpillar was occurring before it was killed by AG Barr.
Comment by Candy Dogood Thursday, Feb 17, 22 @ 3:16 pm
U.S. Attorney John Lausch on the job, that’s the key to the investigations. Fed’s in general and he, in particular, are immune to the usual influence and leverage that politics can bring down. He is following the evidence trail up the food chain and Public Official A is mentioned again.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Thursday, Feb 17, 22 @ 3:17 pm
==== If two lobbyists discuss ways to “persuade” a member, that could be illegal.====
Yikes. Isn’t that what us lobbyist are supposed to do? Persuade members.
Comment by Been There Thursday, Feb 17, 22 @ 3:19 pm
“The mere thought someone would do something that could be beneficial”
mens rea, almost perfectly captures this aspect of human behavior in law.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Thursday, Feb 17, 22 @ 3:21 pm
-Yikes. Isn’t that what us lobbyist are supposed to do? Persuade members.-
Not by way of an illegal gratuity.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Feb 17, 22 @ 3:22 pm
No. Two lobbyist discussing how to persuade a member not illegal unless done with corrupt intent. Nothing really new in this ruling legally.
Comment by Watchful eye. Thursday, Feb 17, 22 @ 3:27 pm
=== His interpretation of 666 means you don’t have to have a quid pro quo. The member doesn’t have to get something specifically. The mere thought someone would do something that could be beneficial, if done so with corrupt motive, would be criminal. If two lobbyists discuss ways to “persuade” a member, that could be illegal. The member doesn’t need to even know about it. Doesn’t have to be tied to a bill. Doesn’t have to be tied to any act. ===
Seems to me that they are saying the ComEd Defendants can be guilty even if Madigan wasn’t aware of what was happening.
Comment by Cluster Thursday, Feb 17, 22 @ 3:28 pm
Of course there does not need to be a quid pro quo for a conspiracy theory. There needs to be an overt act to advance the conspiracy but not completion of the ultimate goal of the conspiracy. Nothing new here.
Comment by Original Anon Thursday, Feb 17, 22 @ 3:33 pm
666 is the bribery statute.
Comment by Watchful eye. Thursday, Feb 17, 22 @ 3:37 pm
=== lobbyist are supposed to do? Persuade members.===
There’s persuade and then there’s “persuade.”
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 17, 22 @ 3:38 pm
“Hey Legislators, there’s a really great bill that would help address the needs of my organization and benefit the people of Illinois in the following ways”
Is very different than:
“Hey Legislators, here’s this really great bill that will benefit my organization, and if you support it my organization will make sure you or your political allies benefit too.”
I’m not sure how people can be confused about the difference unless they think my second example is an appropriate use of public office and an appropriate lobbying tactic. Promising choosy private sector jobs in exchange for legislation is an issue that negatively impacts everyone.
If a company is willing to add dead weight to it’s payroll to get legislation through, you can probably count on that legislation not being in the best interest of the People of Illinois. We also need to acknowledge as a State that it doesn’t matter who gets the job, it doesn’t matter who did it last, and it doesn’t matter if people are still doing it this way, it’s illegal, it’s bad, it needs to stop, and people who have done it better be quick to sign sign a deal when the FBI meets them at the parking lot of their gym.
We owe it to Illinois to do better.
Comment by Candy Dogood Thursday, Feb 17, 22 @ 4:11 pm
“U.S. Attorney John Lausch on the job, that’s the key to the investigations” I highly doubt that this whole investigation was started by Lausch, or his predecessor Zach Fardon either. I would bet money the Madigan/Com Ed investigation started under Fitzgerald.
Don’t put too much stock in one person, Lausch could be gone any day that President Biden snaps his fingers.
Comment by Payback Thursday, Feb 17, 22 @ 4:15 pm
So what if the “persuasion” tactics include threatening a legislator with a well funded primary opponent if they do not go along. Not necessarily in the best interests of the people of Illinois, but also not illegal, right Candy?
Comment by Cluster Thursday, Feb 17, 22 @ 4:18 pm
==- Candy Dogood - Thursday, Feb 17, 22 @ 4:11 pm:
“Hey Legislators, there’s a really great bill that would help address the needs of my organization and benefit the people of Illinois in the following ways”
Is very different than:
“Hey Legislators, here’s this really great bill that will benefit my organization, and if you support it my organization will make sure you or your political allies benefit too.”
I’m not sure how people can be confused about the difference unless they think my second example is an appropriate use of public office and an appropriate lobbying tactic. Promising choosy private sector jobs in exchange for legislation is an issue that negatively impacts everyone. ==
You make a good point, but these examples are obvious and you’re assuming the ask and the promise are done at the same time. What about the lobbyist who says, “Legislator X, will you please support this bill because it’s good for your district.” The legislator votes for the bill and the lobbyist and their boss discuss how they can support the member in the future. Three months later that lobbyist invites that legislator to a Bulls game; or 6 months later sends a paid staffer to that legislators campaign office; or 12 months later hires a really competent person that legislator happens to recommend. Is that permissible? Is that corruption?
Comment by wonderings Thursday, Feb 17, 22 @ 4:40 pm
==“Hey Legislators, here’s this really great bill that will benefit my organization, and if you support it my organization will make sure you or your political allies benefit too.”==
Are we getting to the point that if you have a financial interest in government, you can’t participate in politics without risking doing time in the penitentiary? I’m not sure how that would work? At some point the ACLU and other groups need to step in defend/assert the 1st Amendment right to petition the government and engage in political speech.
Comment by Kristin Thursday, Feb 17, 22 @ 5:09 pm
If someone offered $1,000 to a plumbing inspector, would anyone argue there needs to be a quid pro quo between the briber and plumbing inspector to constitute bribery? The opinion cites a case in the 1st Circuit that seems to disagree, but cites two in the 7th Circuit that agree, and this is not the 1st Circuit. I am very suspicious that 1st Circuit case is really on point here too. You can bribe someone without that person agreeing to be bribed. Lobbyists, white shoe law firms, and publicly traded companies don’t change that.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Thursday, Feb 17, 22 @ 5:12 pm
= Is that corruption? =
Your questions of examples are pretty much the standard corporate tests some employees have to take every year.
Yes those are all corruption, defined by your existing relationship with that person. Lets go through each one.
“Three months later that lobbyist invites that legislator to a Bulls game”
-Thanks, what seat are you in and I’ll see if I can buy a seat next to you. Unfortunately I can not accept anything of value from you due to our business relationship.
“or 6 months later sends a paid staffer to that legislators campaign office”
-Due to our existing relationship, I can’t accept anyone on your payroll as a volunteer for my benefit.
“or 12 months later hires a really competent person that legislator happens to recommend.”
-You’re already halfway up the creek with making the private recommendation in the first place.
Not committing corruption isn’t that hard. If it is, that’s just the difficulty inherent in trying to find a “legal” way to do what you already know is in your own self-interest above whatever you are claiming to be working for - a company or the public.
I’m also fully aware the rules, and more specifically punishments, in most government agencies are incredibly lacking in this regard. Like how an ethics investigation can often be stopped dead before turning up illegal activity simply by the resignation of the offender from office. That should not be an option.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Thursday, Feb 17, 22 @ 5:16 pm
I agree with wondering. Even the do gooder lobbyist do things like go to fundraisers, pass petitions, help with campaigns. We all do it for those we think will be good for our cause / clients. And I dont think it’s right tie it to an official act like a vote. But I also think that help you gave the legislator is part of persuading. I missed the parentheses in the original post as Rich pointed out. But the line seems to be getting more blurry with the feds.
Comment by Been There Thursday, Feb 17, 22 @ 5:40 pm
Lots of communication is implicit, not explicit.
Lobbyists typically do not explicitly say they are providing a benefit to legislators in return for their votes on bills. Just as legislators typically do not promise a vote in return for a contribution.
Comment by anon2 Thursday, Feb 17, 22 @ 6:41 pm
I’m not a lawyer so I won’t wade into all of that stuff. But, I have a potentially illuminating question:
Why do lobbyists donate to legislators? Why do corporations? Is it out of the kindness of their hearts? Surely it is to gain influence. Even if it’s not related to a specific issue or bill. Even if it’s never spoken about. Those who contribute (defined in many ways) less typically have less influence.
What these folks did clearly seems to be illegal, but this is a good opportunity to reflect on how rotten campaign finance is in this country generally.
Comment by JJJJJJJJJJ Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 9:12 am