Eye On Illinois: With Madigan, looking backward only useful for charting a better future

We’re still a long way from “War and Peace,” but Capitol News Illinois Editor-in-Chief Jerry Nowicki dropped a fascinating statistic Thursday: Reporter Hannah Meisel wrote about 90,000 words over about 50 stories since just October all focused on the federal corruption trial of ex-Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan.

That’s about the same length as George Orwell’s “1984,” and although serial journalism is by nature a bit repetitive, three cheers to CNI for retooling its Madigan landing page (capitolnewsillinois.com/madigan-week-in-review) to put all 14 weeks of trial coverage in chronological order with summaries and links.

The trial itself is only part of the timeline. Rumblings of the FBI investigation that eventually led to Thursday’s verdict go back to the summer of 2019, but Madigan’s time in the public eye spans more than half a century. He joined the House in January 1971, three years before the state started selling lottery tickets. And while a jury found him guilty on 10 counts of violating federal bribery laws, that won’t mark the endpoint of the legal proceedings.

First, there’s the obvious wait for sentencing and possibly appeals, but there are several other ongoing criminal proceedings implicating other key players in the allegations, such as former AT&T Illinois President Paul La Schiazza and the “ComEd Four”: found guilty in their own bribery trial linked to Madigan but awaiting sentencing.

And also, as Illinoisans were reminded shortly before the Madigan verdict, perhaps somewhere down the road a friendly president will commute whatever sentence Madigan gets or grant him an outright pardon. That a Republican president extended that grace to a former Democratic governor hasn’t dampened the enthusiasm of GOP officials looking to score political points off the Madigan conviction, but the entire situation offers a reminder that looking backward is primarily useful for charting a better path forward.

Plenty of politicians can call for “meaningful ethics reform” but the only ones worth listening to are those with details. The biggest reason Madigan could peddle influence was because General Assembly rules – each chamber approves its own – allowed him to decide if legislation could ever come up for a full vote. Upon that foundation he erected a tower of strength: drawing political maps, controlling fundraising and campaign expenditures, directly and indirectly rewarding loyalty and punishing defiance.

The party in power has to make these changes. Republicans can’t do it alone, nor does their public relations campaign have influence unless and until it crosses over into motivating Democratic voters to either pressure incumbents or withhold electoral support.

We haven’t read the last chapter on Madigan, but hopefully, Democrats won’t close the book altogether. Illinoisans would like to avoid a sequel, which means using this debacle for reference.

• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Local News Network. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.