Chicago, IL. (ECWd) –
On November 18, 2020, a Federal Grand Jury handed down a 9-count Indictment naming three Madigan associates and an Ex-ComEd CEO.
“The indictment was announced by John R. Lausch, Jr., United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois; Emmerson Buie, Jr., Special Agent-in-Charge of the Chicago Field Office of the FBI; and Tamera Cantu, Acting Special Agent-in-Charge of the IRS Criminal Investigation Division in Chicago. The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Amarjeet S. Bhachu, Diane MacArthur, Timothy J. Chapman, Sarah E. Streicker, Matthew L. Kutcher, and Michelle Kramer.
According to the charges, the defendants’ efforts to influence and reward the high-level elected official – identified in the indictment as “Public Official A” – began in or around 2011 and continued through in or around 2019. During that time, Public Official A controlled what measures were called for a vote in the Illinois House of Representatives and exerted substantial influence over fellow lawmakers concerning legislation affecting ComEd, the indictment states. The charges allege that the defendants conspired to corruptly influence and reward Public Official A by arranging for jobs and contracts for Public Official A’s political allies and workers, even in instances where those people performed little or no work that ComEd purportedly hired them to perform. The defendants allegedly created and caused the creation of false contracts, invoices, and other books and records to disguise the true nature of some of the payments and to circumvent internal controls at ComEd.
In addition to the jobs and contracts, the indictment alleges that the defendants undertook other efforts to influence and reward Public Official A, including causing ComEd to retain a particular outside law firm favored by Public Official A and to accept into ComEd’s internship program a certain amount of students who resided in the Chicago ward associated with Public Official A. Pramaggiore and McClain also allegedly took steps to have an individual appointed to ComEd’s Board of Directors at the request of Public Official A and McClain, the indictment states.
The public is reminded that an indictment is not evidence of guilt. The defendants are presumed innocent and entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If convicted, the Court must impose reasonable sentences under federal statutes and the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.“
In the indictment, which stems from the larger ComEd investigations:
Indicted defendants include Michael McClain (the one who allegedly kept his mouth shut about the rape in Champaign), Anne Pramaggiore (first woman to serve as president and CEO of ComEd), John Hooker (endorsed Governor Pritzker’s appointments to the Illinois Tollway Authority prior to their appointments), and Jay Doherty (former City Club of Chicago President).
- MICHAEL McCLAIN served with Public Official A in the House of Representatives for approximately ten years beginning in 1972. After McCLAIN’s service in the House of Representatives, McCLAIN served as a lobbyist and/or consultant for ComEd until in or around 2019. McCLAIN was an attorney who was registered to practice law from between in or around 1977 to in or around 2016
- ANNE PRAMAGGIORE was the chief executive officer of ComEd between in or around March 2012 and May 2018. From on or about June 1, 2018, to on or about October 2019, PRAMAGGIORE served as a senior executive at an affiliate of Exelon and had oversight authority over ComEd’s operations. PRAMAGGIORE was an attorney who was registered to practice law from between in or around 1989 to in or around 2019. Each year between in or around 2012 and in or around 2016, PRAMAGGIORE received annual ethics training, including training on the duty to maintain accurate books and records. Each year between in or around 2010 and in or around 2018, PRAMAGGIORE certified her understanding of the Code of Business Conduct
- JOHN HOOKER served as ComEd’s executive vice president of legislative and external affairs from in or around 2009 until his retirement in or around 2012. From in or around 2012 to in or around 2019, HOOKER served as an external lobbyist for ComEd. Exelon required HOOKER to certify his understanding of the Code of Business Conduct. Between in or around 2010 and in or around 2011, HOOKER certified his understanding of the Code of Business Conduct
- JAY DOHERTY was the owner of Jay D. Doherty & Associates (“JDDA”), which performed consulting services for ComEd beginning prior to in or around 2011 and continuing until in or around 2019
The four defendants are alleged to have conspired with each other:
- to corruptly solicit and demand, and to accept and agree to accept from another person things of value, namely, jobs, contracts, and monetary payments associated with those jobs and contracts, for the benefit of Public Official A (Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives) and his associates, intending that Public Official A, an agent of the State of Illinois, be influenced and rewarded in connection with any business, transaction, and series of transactions of the State of Illinois involving things of value of $5,000 or more, namely, legislation affecting ComEd and its business
- to corruptly give, offer, and agree to give things of valu6, namely, jobs, contracts, and monetary payments associated with those jobs and contracts, for the benefit of Public Official A and his associates, with intent to influence and reward Public Official A, as an agent of the State of Illinois
- knowingly and willfully to circumvent a system of internal accounting controls and to falsify any book, record, and account of Exelon and ComEd
- It was part of the conspiracy that, for the purpose of influencing and rewarding Public Official A in connection with his official duties as Speaker of Illinois
House of Representatives, and to assist ComEd with respect to the passage of legislation favorable to ComEd and its business and the defeat of legislation unfavorable to ComEd and its business,
- Hiring of Public Official A’s Associates as Vendor “Subcontractors” Who Performed Little or No Work for ComEd
- the conspirators caused ComEd to retain Law Firm A, for the purpose of influencing and rewarding Public Official A in connection with Public Official A’s official duties.
- for the purpose of influencing and rewarding Public Official A, the conspirators caused positions in the ComEd Internship Program to be set aside for individuals associated with the Thirteenth Ward who was identified by McCLAIN
- Public Official A and McCLAIN sought the appointment of Individual BM-1 to the ComEd board of directors, and PRAMAGGIORE agreed to seek the appointment of Individual BM-1with the intent to influence and reward Public Official A in connection with Public Official A’s official duties
- McCLAIN regularly made requests on Public Official A’s behalf to PRAMAGGIORE, Marquez, and other personnel within ComEd to hire individuals associated with Public Official A as full-time employees, consultants, and contractors.
- conspiracy to conceal the unlawful benefits tendered for the purpose of influencing and rewarding Public Official A
Read the entire Indictment (here):Indictment
RogerPosted at 19:39h, 19 November
Que the clip from Casablanca…. I’m Shocked! Shocked!!! Will these four take the fall alone?
Time for the best interests of the citizens and the state to take precedence rather than the needs, wants and desires of the mysterious “Public Official A”
GW ONEPosted at 08:11h, 21 November
What Madigan doesn’t know just yet is how much information McClain has given to the US Attorney, But I’d bet Madigan has a clear sense that McLain is no longer a trusted confidant. Madigan likely indicted by Christmas.
A RPosted at 11:06h, 04 December
Speaking of influence peddling, just curious if there are any ethical or legal restrictions on local government bodies to avoid helping promote or advertise a specific private sector company peoducr when there are other competitors in the same niche?
Received responsive public records after a FOIA request and it appears a local Cook County police department officer was telling someone to get a Ring (I think the complaint was that someone stole a package from a doorstep).
Amazon is already a Leviathan sized corporation. Is it ethical to advise someone to get Ring rather than just “get a doorbell camera” in general?
Isn’t this like helping promote and advertise for a private company while on the taxpayer dollar payroll clock?
A RPosted at 11:07h, 04 December
Pardon my typo
PRODUCT was the correct word I meant
ARPosted at 11:32h, 04 December
Never mind anyone responding.
Found my answer…