Ex-AT&T Illinois chief declines to testify in his corruption trial — closing arguments expected Tuesday

Chicago’s latest corruption trial appears headed toward an early end, with closing arguments expected Tuesday morning over whether AT&T Illinois’ former president paid a bribe to then-Illinois House Speaker Michael J. Madigan.

Jurors heard four days of testimony in the trial of Paul La Schiazza before prosecutors and defense attorneys rested their case Monday afternoon. La Schiazza, who led AT&T Illinois for about 12 years, chose not to testify.

Prosecutors say La Schiazza bribed Madigan by steering $22,500 over nine months to former state Rep. Edward “Eddie” Acevedo, a Madigan ally and fellow Southwest Side Democrat, while AT&T Illinois was trying to pass legislation it believed was worth millions to its bottom line.

AT&T Illinois was trying to end its costly obligation to provide landline phone service to all Illinois residents. The bill in question became law in summer 2017, with the support of Madigan.

La Schiazza’s defense attorneys say there is no evidence of an explicit exchange — Acevedo’s money for passage of the legislation. Nor, they say, is there evidence that La Schiazza knew he was acting unlawfully. Rather, they say La Schiazza was trying to build goodwill with a powerful politician.

Jurors heard Monday that La Schiazza received an $85,000 performance bonus for the “strong execution” of his work in 2017 — specifically for the passage of legislation at issue in the trial.

The trial over whether the payments to Acevedo amounted to a bribe has played out just weeks ahead of Madigan’s own trial, which is set for Oct. 8. In fact, Madigan spent much of the day Monday in a pretrial hearing five floors below the La Schiazza courtroom.

Madigan left the Legislature in 2021, and he has faced racketeering conspiracy charges since 2022.

Jurors in La Schiazza’s trial have heard extensive testimony since Wednesday about the power and influence Madigan wielded in Springfield. That’s even though La Schiazza’s lawyers don’t dispute it. In fact, evidence shows La Schiazza was offended by it.

Prosecutors displayed emails where La Schiazza derided Madigan as “King Madigan” and complained that Madigan “can not lose, the system is rigged as everyone in the system is beholden to the Speaker.”

Jurors also heard about Michael McClain, the longtime Madigan ally who has already been convicted of a lengthy scheme to bribe the speaker. He was widely seen in Springfield as an emissary of Madigan’s, and he faces trial again with Madigan in October.

McClain reached out to AT&T Illinois in February 2017 asking for “a small contract” for Acevedo, prosecutors say. Two days after that, McClain allegedly told La Schiazza that Madigan had assigned McClain to work on AT&T’s legislation as a “special project.”

More than a month later, on March 28, 2017, La Schiazza sent his team a note that he “got a call” and asked about money for Acevedo. Longtime AT&T Illinois lobbyist Stephen Selcke testified that he believed the request came from McClain — on behalf of Madigan.

“My impression was that Mr. McClain was advancing a request to [La Schiazza] after a presumed discussion that he had had with Speaker [Michael] Madigan,” Selcke testified.

AT&T Illinois wound up funneling the money through a firm belonging to lobbyist Tom Cullen. Selcke testified that he suggested such an arrangement after Republicans pulled him aside and told him that hiring Acevedo, who had recently retired from the Legislature, would be a dealbreaker.

In fact, Selcke testified that no one at AT&T Illinois was interested in hiring Acevedo until McClain reached out.

Still, not all of the testimony in the trial aligned with the prosecutors’ theories. When a prosecutor asked at one point whether Acevedo’s hiring was “in any way related to” AT&T’s legislative priority, Selcke said “in my mind, no, it wasn’t.”

When pressed, Selcke acknowledged the Republican threat to vote against AT&T if it hired Acevedo. He also said the utility didn’t want to “rock the boat” with Madigan.

Defense attorney Jack Dodds later asked Selcke if he thought giving a contract to Acevedo would convince Madigan to move AT&T’s legislation forward.

“No, I did not feel that way or think that way,” Selcke testified.