Former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan loses bid to dismiss bribery charges ahead of trial

CHICAGO (CBS) — A federal judge has rejected former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan’s motion to dismiss most of the criminal charges against himdespite a recent US Supreme Court ruling that narrowed the scope of federal bribery laws.

US District Judge John Blakey also denied a request from Madigan’s co-defendant and longtime confidant, Michael McClain, to be tried separately from the former speaker.

Blakey’s rulings come less than a week before Madigan and McClain are set to face trial in federal court in Chicago.

Madigan and McClain are facing a federal indictment charging them with racketeering, conspiracy, bribery, and wire fraud, most of which carry up to 20 years in prison if they are convicted.

They are accused of a bribery scheme involving multiple businesses – including ComEd – in which the businesses paid Madigan’s associates as a reward for their loyalty to Madigan. Federal prosecutors said Madigan used his various political positions as part of a long-term scheme to arrange for no-show jobs for his political workers, and personal benefits for himself.

In January, Blakey agreed to delay Madigan’s trial for six monthswhile awaiting a Supreme Court ruling in a northwest Indiana corruption case that threatens to impact the case against Madigan.

The Supreme Court ruled in June that federal bribery law does not outlaw so-called “gratuities,” or gifts given to elected officials after the fact as rewards for favorable action, and Madigan’s attorneys then sought to dismiss most of the charges against Madigan, arguing the court’s ruling left the case against him “fatally infirm, constitutionally and otherwise.”

“The Supreme Court clearly and definitively held that the statute applies only to bribes, not gratuities, and that bribery ‘requires that the officer have a corrupt state of mind and accept (or agree to accept) the payment intended to be influenced in the official act,'” Madigan’s attorneys wrote. “In other words, the government must establish a quid pro quo. Yet in its highly publicized, lengthy speaking indictment, the government fails to allege facts that would support the notion that Madigan acted corruptly or agreed to, or intended to agree to, a quid pro quo.”

Madigan’s attorneys argued that the government failed to establish a “quid pro quo” arrangement involving the former speaker, but federal prosecutors argued they could proceed with the case under a so-called “stream of benefits” theory, and in his ruling on Wednesday, Blakey agreed with the feds.

Blakey ruled that legal precedent has established prosecutors can prove bribery under such a theory, in which the alleged corruption “was more like a meal plan in which you don’t pay for each item on the menu.”

The judge also shot down the defense team’s argument that Madigan simply made job recommendations to ComEd and other businesses and then happened to vote in favor of legislation favorable to them.

“The indictment alleges that Defendants conspired to utilize Madigan’s role to affect legislation in exchange for certain entities’ hiring his associates to private sector roles,” Blakey wrote.

Madigan and McClain both have pleaded not guilty to all charges. Last year, McClain and three others were convicted in a related ComEd bribery case.

Madigan and McClain’s trial is set to begin on Tuesday with jury selection.