CHICAGO — Deliberations continued Wednesday in the trial of Paul La Schiazza, the former president of AT&T Illinois, who faces charges of conspiracy, bribery, and other offenses. Accused of making illicit payments to a confidante of Michael Madigan, the once-dominant Illinois House Speaker, La Schiazza allegedly aimed to secure backing for legislation that could save his company substantial sums.
The trial, which concluded its proceedings much faster than the anticipated three weeks, pivots on accusations that La Schiazza arranged for former state Rep. Eddie Acevedo, known for his ties to Madigan, to be paid $22,500 over nine months for minimal work. This purported job was to involve producing a report on Latino caucuses, a task prosecutors suggest was a facade.
Key discussions in the trial have revolved around the COLR bill, pivotal legislation for AT&T that would markedly reduce financial liabilities by millions. According to the prosecution, this legislative support was not just serendipitous but bought through corrupt transactions designed to benefit all parties except the citizens of Illinois.
In presenting their case, federal prosecutors described a scheme where “wheeling and dealing” resulted in personal gains for Acevedo, a career boost for La Schiazza, and the passage of a coveted bill for AT&T. Assistant U.S. Attorney Sushma Raju contended in her closing argument that this case was a clear instance of bribery, “not lobbying,” that subverted the legislative process to the detriment of public trust and governance.
Countering these allegations, La Schiazza’s defense argues that their client was merely engaging in standard, albeit aggressive, lobbying practices that are common and legal in corporate-political interactions. Defense attorney Tinos Diamantatos emphasized the extensive efforts by AT&T to lawfully secure the bill’s passage, framing the payments as legitimate business practices and not as bribes.
Diamantatos also attacked the prosecution’s motives, suggesting that La Schiazza was unjustly caught in a broader attempt to dismantle Madigan’s powerful political machine. He portrayed the charges as an overreach, lacking in conclusive evidence and urged for the acquittal of La Schiazza, stressing his innocence and adherence to his professional duties.
The broader legal context includes upcoming trials for Madigan and his associate Michael McClain, both facing racketeering charges linked to what prosecutors describe as a criminal enterprise operating under the guise of public service. These cases involve allegations similar to those faced by La Schiazza, where jobs requiring little to no work were allegedly assigned to Madigan’s allies in exchange for political favors.
This ongoing legal saga unfolds against a backdrop of heightened scrutiny of political corruption in Illinois, with the outcomes likely to have significant implications for state politics and governance. As the jury deliberates, the public and political observers await verdicts that could redefine the intersection of business and politics in the state.