CHICAGO — Former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan testified in his corruption trial Wednesday that he was taken aback when then-Ald. Daniel Solis told him over the phone that the developers of a West Loop condo tower understood “the quid pro quo” of hiring Madigan’s law firm.

“A great deal of surprise and concern,” Madigan said of the reaction in his head when Solis, who turned out to be working undercover for the FBI, said those words.

Madigan’s lawyer, Daniel Collins, asked the former speaker what he knew of Solis, whom Madigan had known since Solis’ days at the United Neighborhood Organization in the mid-1980s.

“I knew nothing negative about Daniel Solis at the time,” Madigan said, looking right at the jury. “I had been supportive of his campaigns … Over all those years I had never been told by anybody that there was anything negative about Mr. Solis.”

Madigan said Solis’ comment continued to eat at him. “I decided that I wanted to have a face-to-face meeting with Mr. Solis to give me an opportunity to tell him that I would not be involved in a quid pro quo,” he told the jury.

Solis’s secret video recorded of that meeting, which was played for the jury earlier in the trial, captured Madigan telling Solis, the head of the influential Zoning Committee, that he “shouldn’t be talking like that” in front of developers.

Madigan said Solis’ “expression was such that it told me that he had gotten the message from me that I was not going to be involved in a quid pro quo.”

“He appeared to be very apologetic and his answer was almost instantaneous where he said ‘I’m sorry.'” Madigan testified.

Madigan said repeatedly that his only request from Solis was for an introduction. “I was not going to connect a request for an introduction with anything else,” Madigan said.

Madigan’s explanation of the events caught on Solis’ secret recordings came during his second day on the witness stand, continuing testimony that will surely be some of the most crucial and closely examined of the bombshell public corruption trial.

His surprise decision to testify carries extreme risks, and few defendants, let alone such high-profile ones, have opted to take the stand.

But Madigan, who for decades was the state’s most powerful politician, seemed calm and confident from the moment he began talking to jurors Tuesday, repeatedly denying he ever exchanged any official actions for his own private gain.

His tone was similar Wednesday, even as Collins took him through some of the more thorny allegations in the indictment, including that he browbeat ComEd into hiring people he recommended and that he knew of a plan to funnel payments to former 13th Ward aide Kevin Quinn, who had been ousted due to allegations of “misconduct.”

The jury has not heard specifically that Quinn was accused of sexual harassment by a fellow campaign worker. But the heard numerous wiretapped conversations detailing a plan by McClain to have a group of Madigan-connected lobbyists sent Quinn $1,000 per month each for several months, until he could find steady work.

In one call played for the jury, McClain told Madigan of his plan, and the speaker said he ought to “stay out of it.”

Madigan testified Wednesday he knew that Quinn was looking for work and that McClain was trying to help him. “My choice — my decision was not to participate in the effort to help Mr. Quinn,” he said.

But you were aware of McClain’s efforts; why didn’t you put a stop to it? Collins asked.

“Mr. Quinn had lost his job, he was out of work, he was going through a very difficult divorce … ” Madigan started to answer before prosecutors successfully objected.

Prosecutors have tried to use the payments to Quinn, the brother of Madigan’s handpicked 13th Ward Ald. Marty Quinn, to show how McClain quietly carried out assignments for the speaker as a way to keep Madigan’s fingerprints off of the activities.

Collins also displayed for jurors some of the most memorable exhibits of the trial, in which his longtime confidant and co-defendant Michael McClain invoked Madigan in emails to ComEd officials urging them to make certain moves or else risk Madigan’s wrath.

In response to each one of them, Madigan denied outright that McClain was accurately reflecting his mindset in those emails, and denied telling McClain to contact ComEd with those instructions.

It was the most blatant attempt yet to distance Madigan from his co-defendant, who sent nigh-innumerable messages to ComEd purportedly containing directions from “our friend” – that is, Madigan.

“I do not know how to respond to our friend, who believes in his mind there should be a hard and quick favorable response,” McClain wrote to then-ComEd executive Fidel Marquez in an email that warned Marquez about his supposed inconsistency in responding to McClain’s requests.

“Did McClain accurately describe your mindset?” Collins asked. No, Madigan responded.

“Did you instruct McClain to express this sentiment?” Collins asked. Madigan again responded no.

Madigan also denied any knowledge of the drama surrounding contract negotiations between ComEd and the law firm of Victor Reyes, who had significant clout with Illinois Democrats. McClain emailed ComEd saying that the utility should give Reyes’ firm the contract it wanted before Reyes complained to Madigan, who would in turn put pressure on McClain.

“Did you know he was expressing this sentiment to ComEd on your behalf?” Collins asked. “Did this reflect your mindset … around Reyes’ law firm?”

Madigan answered no to both.

After more than five hours of direct examination, an attorney for McClain began questioning the former speaker, hoping to reinforce McClain’s argument that he was an immensely skilled lobbyist who worked hard for his clients.

Madigan and McClain’s history goes back to the 1970s, when they served in the House together, and endured through McClain’s transition to lobbying, Madigan confirmed on the stand.

“Fair to say you had a lot of contact with Mike over those decades?” McClain attorney Patrick Cotter asked, and Madigan answered yes.

“Did the friendship survive, sir?”

“It did until recently,” Madigan said softly.

On questioning from Cotter, Madigan confirmed that over some 40 years of friendship with McClain he would routinely consult McClain on political and strategic matters. And he said he was always able to separate out when McClain was contacting him wearing his lobbyist hat.

“Isn’t it a fact that around your office there was a saying, ‘Today we have to treat Mike like a lobbyist?'” Cotter asked

“Correct,” Madigan replied.

Because on those days Mike was in there pitching for his clients? Cotter asked.

“And we would be disagreeing with his message,” Madigan replied.

Despite the serious nature of Madigan’s testimony, there were moments of levity Wednesday, particularly when Cotter asked if McClain was a “master” of the legislative process in Springfield.

“I don’t know if I’d use the word 'master,'” Madigan said. “I’m not trying to be negative on him and his knowledge — he knew his way around.”

Cotter appeared perplexed and asked Madigan who else in Springfield knew more than McClain — then paused and added “other than yourself?”

“I’m glad you said that,” Madigan said with a laugh, which also brought chuckles from some jurors.

Madigan, 82, a Southwest Side Democrat, and McClain, 77, of downstate Quincy, are charged in a 23-count indictment alleging that Madigan’s vaunted state and political operations were run like a criminal enterprise to amass and increase his power and enrich himself and his associates.

In addition to bribery schemes involving ComEd and AT&T Illinois, the indictment alleges Madigan pressured developers to hire the speaker’s law firm and tried to win business by secretly supporting legislation to transfer state-owned land in Chinatown to the city so developers could build a high-rise.

Both Madigan and McClain have denied wrongdoing.

Madigan’s attorneys said Tuesday that the ex-speaker’s direct examination could wrap up by late Wednesday morning; it will likely be followed by questioning from co-defendant Michael McClain’s attorney.

Then Madigan will sit through what is sure to be a thorough grilling from prosecutors on cross-examination, which will stretch Madigan’s testimony into next week.

The trial, which began Oct. 8 and was originally slated to end before Christmas, is inching toward a conclusion, with Madigan’s testimony surely adding to estimates of when it might end.

U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey on Tuesday told jurors they can expect to be deliberating by the week of Jan. 27, though even that seems increasingly unlikely.

Madigan’s testimony Tuesday was at times intimate, with the former speaker recalling his strict Southwest Side upbringing and his courtship with his wife, but most of it consisted of Madigan denying prosecutors’ accusations that he used his political and government operations for his own benefit.

Madigan was merely eager to help allies and constituents when they needed job referrals, he testified, and had no understanding or arrangement to look favorably on legislation for companies that hired his referrals.

During the prosecution’s case, jurors saw floods of emails, undercover videos and wiretapped phone calls in which McClain and ComEd executives discuss hiring Madigan associates, including precinct captains Edward Moody and Ray Nice, former 13th Ward Ald. Frank Olivo, former 23rd Ward Ald. Michael Zalewski, and ex-state Rep. Edward Acevedo.

Former ComEd executive Fidel Marquez testified earlier in the trial that the hiring was done so that Madigan would look favorably upon ComEd’s legislation.

But Madigan testified Tuesday there had been no such deal. He said he merely agreed to help friends find work and passed their information along to McClain, and expressed anger that some of them, including Olivo and Nice, had apparently not lifted a finger.

Acevedo allegedly got a similar no-work deal from AT&T as part of the telecom giant’s scheme to win Madigan’s support. But on Tuesday, Madigan said he didn’t even know Acevedo was being paid by AT&T until this case was brought.

_____

©2025 Chicago Tribune. Visit chicagotribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.