Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Defense, prosecutors debate “goodwill”

Posted in:

Illinois
Blagojevich Trial

* Steve Daniels on the legal arguments over jury instructions for the ComEd defendants…

“The instructions should state, as defendants have argued, that a violation . . . requires a quid pro quo,” according to the [defense] filing. “In other words, a person acts corruptly in violation of (the law) when he or she exchanges a thing of value for an official act. The Supreme Court has held that ‘for bribery there must be a quid pro quo—a specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act.’ ”

So, in the instructions they propose Leinenweber give, [defendants] suggest he make clear, “It is not a crime to give something to a public official to build a reservoir of goodwill that might ultimately affect one or more of a multitude of unspecified acts, now and in the future.”

The proposed jury instructions from U.S. Attorney John Lausch, also filed May 16, suggest instead this construct: “A person acts corruptly when that person acts with the intent that something of value is given or offered to reward or influence an agent of state government in connection with the agent’s official duties.”

Defense attorneys want more specificity than that.

So, if a legislator wins a “Best Friend of the Widget Industry” award every year and receives regular campaign contributions from the widget group and its members and then sponsors a new widget industry bill, are the industry lobbyists and the legislator who happens to represent lots of widget workers acting corruptly or is the legislator merely a beneficiary of goodwill and attempting to do something perceived by the legislator and the industry as a positive for the state?

And, yes, I get that ComEd went way beyond the above hypothetical, but the debate the defense wants to have is whether what they did was just an extreme, far more organized and hugely effective extension of the smaller-scale things that happen every day in the political world. Ultimately (after a retrial), Rod Blagojevich’s argument that the feds were criminalizing politics did not work. These defendants, however, appear to have better lawyers and will likely be far more well-behaved than Rod was.

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, May 19, 22 @ 8:38 am

Comments

Starting with Otto Kerner’s case through McDonnell v. United States, the Supreme Court has consistently attacked “Honest Services Fraud” and pushed towards “quid pro quo” … . Unless the Supreme Court changes, the Defendants position is the one the Supreme Court will hold.

Comment by Anyone Remember Thursday, May 19, 22 @ 8:47 am
I’m just not sure the defendants are gonna prevail here.

The fact of that matter is, they admitted to essentially bribing the Speaker of the House, who has the sole authority to bring bills to the floor, and enjoyed significant sway over his majority caucus in how they voted on bills.

If it was any other legislator, I’d feel otherwise. But the Speaker is just a horse of a different color.

Comment by well... Thursday, May 19, 22 @ 9:02 am
Oh man, Anyone Remember, I had not gamed out that particular scenario. Can we imagine, if this all ended in a conservative majority of this Supreme Court overturning Michael Madigan’s conviction? That would be … amazing.

Comment by ZC Thursday, May 19, 22 @ 9:04 am
Goodwill hunting?

Comment by Langhorne Thursday, May 19, 22 @ 9:14 am
Plus, Rod was selling appointments for $25,000 a pop and withholding official acts from people who didn’t give, which is illegal under the standards proposed by both the US Attorney and ComEd.

Comment by Socially DIstant watcher Thursday, May 19, 22 @ 9:19 am
- Langhorne - Thursday, May 19, 22 @ 9:14 am:

Goodwill hunting?

Coffee sprayed on keyboard, LOL

Comment by froganon Thursday, May 19, 22 @ 9:41 am
Even if they use the defendant’s instructions, I think the prosecutors still have a strong case. The texts from McClain and Lisa Madigan’s failed energy bill could meet the definition of quid pro quo.

Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, May 19, 22 @ 9:47 am
The U.S. Supreme Court just ruled (FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate) that it is illegal to have any limits on a politician personally loaning their campaign money during a political campaign and then collecting donations from special interests to pay off that loan - essentially legalizing bribery of members of Congress.

How does that square with these prosecutions?

Even if these folks get convicted, I don’t know how this stuff would stand up on appeal with this pro-corruption Supreme Court.

Comment by hisgirlfriday Thursday, May 19, 22 @ 9:49 am
If US Attorney John Lausch truly believes that is the definition of corruption, then why has Mayor Richard Irvin not been investigated and indicted already? Over $100K in campaign contributions from a city developer who also hired his wife?

Lausch is either grasping at straws or hyper-partisan.

If I give my alderman free advertising by putting his sign in my window to build goodwill and hopefully reduce the odds I will be getting dinged by city inspectors, I have now committed a federal crime?

The jails are not big enough, we are opening the doors to capricious prosecution very wide indeed.

Comment by Juvenal Thursday, May 19, 22 @ 9:50 am
=Goodwill hunting?=

That is top shelf wit right there.

Not sure if anyone caught Jon Oliver this past weekend, but the corruption by energy companies is apparently widespread and pervasive. whether by outright bribery (like comed), intensive lobbying of soft-skulled pols, or gaining control of the regulators energy companies have done a spectacular job of feathering their nest.

Only if some of these folks start going to jail will it ever slow down.

But goodwill? Spare me. Wish I was on that jury.

Comment by JS Mill Thursday, May 19, 22 @ 9:55 am
Semantics won’t keep these guys out of jail. The scope of benefit received by ComEd was in the billions, and they played a part in that. At all of our expense, by the way.

Comment by Lincoln Lad Thursday, May 19, 22 @ 11:18 am
I would cherish the opportunity to lobby for a Widget Company.

Comment by Dream Job Thursday, May 19, 22 @ 11:37 am
===Semantics won’t keep these guys out of jail.===

The federal Supremes LIVE for semantics …

Comment by Anyone Remember Thursday, May 19, 22 @ 11:54 am