Rep. Kevin Schmidt | Courtesy photo
Rep. Kevin Schmidt | Courtesy photo
State Rep. Kevin Schmidt (R-Cahokia Heights) hopes the guilty verdicts reached in the ComEd bribery trial will serve as a springboard to ethics reform in Springfield.
“Today’s actions in court are an indictment of the culture of corruption which was allowed to thrive under Speaker Madigan’s inner circle,” Schmidt said in a statement on his website, following the guilty verdicts of ComEd 4 trial. “We must take stronger action to restore ethical behavior in Springfield. If we don’t, the problems will only continue to worsen. Illinoisans should be furious and we must gather in one voice to demand that this kind of behavior is stopped and prevented in the future.”
Found guilty in the eight-week long federal corruption trial were close Mike Madigan confidante Mike McClain, former ComEd CEO Anne Prammagiore, lobbyist Pete Doherty and John Hooker, a former company executive who rose to be widely regarded as the utility's point man in Springfield. The Chicago Tribune reports Madigan and McCain are slated to go on trial early next year on a slew of corruption charges that include some of the same issues raised in the ComEd 4 case, which centered on claims the four defendants conspired to bribe Madigan while he was still House Speaker in exchange for his support on legislation being pushed by the utility.
Acting U.S. Attorney Morris Pasqual reflected on the impact these types of scandals have on public trust.
“The state of Illinois unfortunately has a deep-seated public corruption problem, corruption that erodes and eats away at the people’s confidence in their government and in their elected officials,” Pasqual said, according to the Chicago Tribune.
Juror Rob Garnes expressed how the panel wanted the guilty verdicts to showcase the fact that everyone must follow the law.
“Maybe going forward, even the young up-and-coming Springfield lobbyists … they can use this as, I guess, an example,” Garnes said, as reported by the Tribune. “We said to ourselves, (the defendants) had a chance to stop this. They really could. It didn’t have to go this far but it did, because nobody tried to stop it. … They felt like they were untouchable or just (said) ‘to hell with it.’”