“I do this reluctantly. It’s better to do it right than do it twice.”
So said U.S. District Judge Robert Blakey as he agreed to reschedule the trial of former House Speaker Michael Madigan. Originally set to begin April 1, the quest to determine whether Madigan is guilty of the federal government’s bribery and racketeering allegations is delayed until Oct. 8.
Scott T. Holland
And while some were dismayed – House Minority Leader Tony McCombie, R-Savanna, issued a statement saying “It is disappointing to wait for justice to be served to Mike Madigan and his corrupt associates” – a pragmatic reading of the situation aligns with Blakey’s apprehension.
Prosecutors wanted to forge ahead, but Blakey agreed with Madigan’s defense team regarding the prudence of waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to issue its ruling in a case involving a Portage, Indiana, mayor already convicted under the same bribery law Madigan stands accused of violating. There, feds alleged the official accepted $13,000 from a company after it won contracts to sell garbage trucks to the city.
Hannah Meisel, of Capitol News Illinois, said Blakey acknowledged the Indiana case overlaps with only a third of the 23 charges against Madigan. That opinion is expected in June. It’s not difficult to envision a scenario in which Madigan is convicted in May with sentencing set for July and the SCOTUS ruling falling in the middle, allowing defense attorneys the chance to move for a new trial, a much larger disappointment for those waiting for justice.
Illinoisans won’t be directly affected if Madigan goes to prison. He’s turning 82 in April and at no risk of committing the same crimes of which he stands accused, given he no longer has political power to sell. But his trial, and that of the Indiana mayor, and the recently completed prosecution of former Chicago Alderman Ed Burke, all contribute to an apparently much-needed definition of the line between standard business practices and political corruption.
The same U.S. Attorney’s Office is prosecuting the Madigan and Indiana cases. They maintain they can prove corruption without evidence of formal “quid pro quo” agreements. Defendants in these and other matters have long insisted they have reasonable explanations for things like making job recommendations or supporting certain legislation.
The Supreme Court, and presumably Blakey to follow, can further clarify when elected officials cross the line. Campaign contributions aren’t illegal. Neither is recommending a former colleague for a new job. But when those and other actions yield legislative results that might not otherwise be possible, it’s more than fair to question if everything is above board.
We give elected officials specific power, and are therefore entitled to hold them to higher standards. Strengthening those standards is worth the wait.
• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Media. Follow him on Twitter @sth749. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.
Ino Saves New
via rk2’s favorite articles on Inoreader https://ift.tt/Wxfzn4s
January 6, 2024 at 02:32PM
Illinois Delivered 