
‘A tale of two Mike Madigans': How the ex-Speaker's trial testimony offered his life story but also route to 7 1/2-year sentence
Months before a federal judge sentenced former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan to prison on Friday, the once-mighty state Democratic Party chairman took the witness stand in his corruption trial in an attempt to save himself.
The only politician in America to serve 36 years as a House speaker guided jurors through his version of a complex personal and political life where few have gone before.
For a high-profile Chicago politician that some called the 'sphinx' because of his secrecy, Madigan's decision to testify demonstrated he could not sit by and let his fate play out without speaking up.
On Friday, Madigan found himself in a different posture, pleading for mercy as he asked for more time with a family that included an ailing wife.
'When I look back on my life, being speaker is not what gives me the most pride,' Madigan said. 'I am most proud of being a good husband, a good father and now a good grandfather.'
In sentencing Madigan to seven and a half years in federal prison and fining him $2.5 million, U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey made it clear that Madigan's decision to testify at trial had cost him dearly. The judge called some aspects of his testimony about the details of the alleged schemes 'a nauseating display of perjury' that was 'hard to watch.'
Blakey said he was struck by what essentially was 'a tale of two different Mike Madigans,' a play on the theme of a Charles Dickens classic, adding that the space between good and evil is 'a line that passes right through the heart of every single person.'
'Hero or villain? Well, I suppose both are true,' the judge said.
By many accounts, Madigan was a good family man who often helped people who needed it without expecting anything in return, Blakey said. That made it all the more difficult to reconcile Madigan the politician, convicted in a yearslong bribery scheme to use his public office to boost his private law practice and enrich his closest associates.
'This case is really sad because the defendant is a dedicated public servant, apart from the crimes committed in this case,' Blakey said. 'He's also a good and decent person. He had no reason to commit these crimes, but he chose to do so.'
Madigan's surprise decision to take the stand in his own defense provided Illinoisans extensive and personal details about a man who, whether they knew it or not, had shaped much of their lives.
During his 50 years as a state lawmaker, Madigan held sway on monumental issues, from the state income taxes Illinoisans pay, to the roads they drive on, to the candidates they get to vote for each election cycle. He even made the House clock stand still long enough to beat a midnight deadline so his beloved White Sox could build the South Side stadium where fans watch the team play.
Madigan's version of his life story was curated and highly subjective, of course, but it was a story only he could tell. He portrayed himself as something many in Illinois politics never saw: a sympathetic character whose parents 'never told me that they loved me.'
He revealed his own father's struggles with alcohol, how his father slapped him on the head when he came home drunk early one morning and how his father wanted his only son to refrain from excessive drinking. He recounted a whirlwind romance that culminated in marrying a woman with a young daughter who had a contentious relationship with her biological father and would eventually win four terms as attorney general.
For decades, Chicagoans knew Madigan as a larger-than-life power player who racked up multiple Democratic victories. But his courtroom comments came as he fought for his own freedom. There were no highlight reels about fighting for workers, securing pork-barrel projects or forging consensus with lawmakers to pass gay marriage and concealed carry laws.
Madigan presented himself as a person whose natural inclination was to avoid confrontation, an attempt to explain why he went to co-defendant Michael McClain, a lobbyist, former lawmaker and longtime Madigan confidant, to help hire former precinct captains and aldermen as well as deliver bad news to legislative colleagues.
But Madigan's extraordinary four days of testimony, in the end, weren't enough. Federal prosecutors punched back. They argued successfully that the feel-good stories Madigan told opened the door to present more evidence designed to undercut his rosier testimony, including with a tape in which he famously said 'some of these guys have made out like bandits.'
After 11 days and 64 hours of deliberations, jurors came back with a split verdict that found Madigan guilty on 10 of 23 criminal charges.
Despite Friday's sentencing, Madigan is still expected to battle on appeal to overturn the verdict and rewrite a legacy that now paints him as just another crooked Illinois politician, one who squeezed ComEd to put his cronies into no-work jobs while the fate of the utility's legislative agenda rested in his hands.
Ever since the Madigan investigation exploded six years ago, he has argued that he simply made job recommendations for people over the length of his half-century career, considered it a part of his job, and rejected the allegation that he took official action in exchange for a thing of value — insisting he never engaged in an illegal quid pro quo.
'When people ask me for help, if possible,' Madigan testified, 'I try to help them.'
When Madigan was born 83 years ago, his father was a cog in the Democratic machine who became a political stalwart as 13th Ward superintendent. Madigan's mother was a homemaker, and his sister was five years younger. He grew up in the Marquette Park area on the city's Southwest Side.
'My father dominated the house,' Madigan said. 'My mother was quiet and reserved.'
'In that house,' Madigan testified, 'the word 'nurturing' didn't exist. My parents never told me that they loved me. They never embraced, never hugged. That was just the condition that existed at the time.'
Madigan's parents also were 'very strict' about his schoolwork, particularly after a nun saw he scored better than she expected on his fifth grade exam at St. Adrian, a Catholic grammar school, and told his parents to 'get on my case.'
'And so, as it was in those years, they got out the whips, and they went to work,' Madigan testified. 'So I became a more diligent student.'
In Madigan's seventh and eighth grade years, yet another nun urged him to go to St. Ignatius for high school, one of a handful on his father's approved list, and then, after high school, going to the University of Notre Dame became a 'foregone conclusion.'
Along the way, Madigan held jobs typical of a family embedded in the Democratic machine, which by 1955 was beginning to be run by Mayor Richard J. Daley. He worked a couple of summers as a junior laborer at a nearby Chicago Park District nursery when he was around 14 or 15, helping to grow trees and bushes for the park system.
He then landed a job on a 'dirt truck' under his father's jurisdiction, picking up discarded mattresses and broken refrigerators placed on curbs and scooping dirt piled up by street sweepers and shoveling it into a truck to haul to a dump.
Eventually, though, he convinced his father to be reassigned to a garbage truck, a job that came with a 'nightly interrogation' since his father supervised ward services.
'This became difficult,' Madigan testified. 'And my father had been an alcoholic who had quit drinking. He carried an anger problem, short fuse. And so when something went wrong or something went against his wishes, why, there would be a display of anger. And if anybody happened to be in the line of fire, why, it was not a pleasant experience. And in my case, why, it just — it just had me develop a habit where I never wanted to disagree with him, So if I'm in a conversation with him, he's not happy, he's disparaging me, I would just say, 'Yeah, yeah, yeah, yes, sir, yes, sir, yeah, yeah, yeah,' just to get out of the conversation.'
The vignette appeared to be aimed at explaining why Madigan habitually gave brief 'yeah' or 'mmhm' answers to questions, such as an attempt to diffuse prosecutors' arguments that his innocuous phrases condoned alleged misdeeds.
Madigan also testified his father's alcoholism played into a life lesson once when the young Madigan came home around 2 or 3 a.m. 'greatly under the influence of alcohol.'
'My father greeted me at the door, and I got a good, solid slap right across the side of my face,' Madigan said.
Later that morning, Madigan's mother sent him to his father's office for a 'very somber meeting.'
'My father really never talked about drinking until this meeting. … He was very concerned that I might have the same problem that he had,' Madigan explained. 'And he extracted two promises out of me. Number one, never drink on an empty stomach. Make sure you have some food in your stomach before you drink. Number two, never drink before sundown. Never drink before sundown. And so I told him I would abide by that, and I have.'
Advice from his father shaped many other parts of Madigan's thinking, from his longtime support of organized labor to making an extraordinary political connection while attending law school at Loyola University.
In between his first and second year in law school, he worked as an assistant to the 13th Ward alderman, handling often angry and frustrated constituents with requests that ranged from needing a tree trimmed to getting their garbage picked up on time.
'It left me with a lifetime understanding that people like myself involved in government and politics should strive to be responsive to the citizens of the states, citizens of the nation,' Madigan said.
He later worked as a law clerk in the city of Chicago Law Department, a spot right next to the office of Mayor Daley.
'We developed an acquaintance relationship,' Madigan said, adding: 'He knew my father.'
When Madigan graduated from law school in 1967, he took his first job as a lawyer in the same city Law Department. He then landed a job as a hearing officer at the Illinois Commerce Commission, which oversees utilities. But he soon learned a lesson in politics when a Republican committeeman started pulled strings.
'I was a Democrat, and I was involved with the local Democratic organizations in the 13th Ward,' Madigan testified. 'That organization issued a newsletter, and I wrote a column for the Young Democrats. The newsletter fell into the hands of the local Republican ward committeeman, who also happened to be the Republican Cook County chairman.'
But instead of getting fired immediately, as the GOP official wanted, the ICC chairman gave Madigan time to find another job. He landed back in the city law department, once again as part of the Daley administration.
Madigan's political career would soon rise. He won a vote among precinct committeemen in 1969 to replace the 13th Ward's Democratic committeeman, who had died. He won election as a delegate to the state's constitutional convention, which crafted the 1970 Illinois Constitution, which is still in place today. One of his fellow delegates was Richard M. Daley, Hizzoner's son and a future Chicago mayor himself.
Thanks to Democratic Party slating, Madigan soon won his House seat for the first time in 1970, and he spent his first term 'not active,' but rather 'just observing and attempting to learn.'
After Madigan's father died, the new lawmaker befriended a gregarious veteran, Rep. E.J. 'Zeke' Giorgi, a Rockford Democrat who excelled in retail politics.
'My personality was very strident,' Madigan said of his early days as a lawmaker, 'and I didn't do well interacting with the other representatives.'
Giorgi's 'personality was completely different than mine,' said Madigan, an understatement to anyone who knew the secretive Madigan and the always-talkative Giorgi. 'He was open, outgoing, did very well at relating to other people, understanding other people, and being able to work cooperatively with them. So he gave me an education as to how I should change my methods and how I should conduct myself differently than I had when I first arrived.'
Madigan said the most important lesson he learned from Giorgi was that 'it's really important to strive to know and understand other people. You know, it's one thing to have your own ideas. But in life, but in particular in a legislative body, it's really important that you understand that everybody comes there with their own ideas. They're entitled to support positions that they support, and everybody should be given due respect.'
Madigan told jurors he 'developed a lifetime friendship' with Giorgi, who is known as the father of the Illinois lottery and the House champion of riverboat gambling.
It became clear in Madigan's testimony that experiences with his father and with Giorgi influenced how he handled the speakership.
While establishing himself in Springfield during the mid-1970s, Madigan also met a woman who would become his wife, Shirley, a former flight attendant from Oregon, who worked at a Chicago law office where he would stop to discuss politics with a friend.
'It was a real quick romance,' Madigan said, 'and we got married, and we developed a family of three immediately because she had a daughter from a prior marriage who was about 10 or 11 years old at the time.'
Madigan embraced the dual role of being a husband to Shirley and also a father to her daughter, Lisa, as they settled into the 13th Ward's West Lawn neighborhood.
'Shirley had gone through a very difficult divorce, a very contentious relationship with her first husband,' Madigan said. 'And my view was that … I would treat Lisa as my daughter, that I was not the biological father, but I had married Shirley. And, you know, I understood at the get-go that this was a — this is a dual package here. And so I just took on the parental responsibilities.'
Madigan testified about Lisa's 'contentious relationship with her biological father' and the time he heard her crying while talking on the phone.
'I took the phone out of her hands, and her biological father was on the phone shouting at her,' Madigan said. 'And the language was so vile that I don't want to repeat it, but he was using the 'F' word as part of his expression.'
Madigan testified he told Lisa that she never again had to see or talk to her biological father. Madigan said he received numerous threatening letters but avoided a physical confrontation with him, a point the Madigan team used to support the argument that he was non-confrontational on thorny matters.
A Tribune review of courtroom transcripts revealed Madigan's deep reach into his background drew significant questions from Judge Blakey outside of the earshot of the jury and the courtroom audience.
Blakey, in a private sidebar with lawyers outside of jurors' earshot, wondered about the relevance of Madigan testifying about 'some emotional incident' from decades ago. Ultimately, though, Blakey allowed Madigan's team to use the story to demonstrate the longtime speaker's 'approach toward confrontation or how he interacts with people and how he responds, certainly those things are relevant.' But Blakey gave a warning: 'That's not a blank check to bring in every possible experience.'
The Madigan family grew as he and Shirley had three additional children, Nicole, Tiffany and Andrew, all of whom are now adults. Madigan adopted Lisa.
Over the years, Lisa Madigan drew the most political interest. A former state senator who became Illinois' attorney general in 2003, she looked on track to be the first woman to be governor of Illinois. But that expectation took an abrupt turn in July 2013 when she sent a blast email that shook the state's political landscape. Despite raising money at a faster clip than incumbent Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn, she said she would not challenge him.
Why? 'I feel strongly that the state would not be well served by having a governor and speaker of the House from the same family and have never planned to run for governor if that would be the case. With speaker Madigan planning to continue in office, I will not run for governor.'
Ever since, many have pondered what would have happened if the speaker had stepped aside at that point. Instead, Lisa Madigan ran for reelection as attorney general, completed her fourth term and joined a private law firm. In her final days as attorney general, she would swear in her father to the speakership during a festive ceremony in 2019.
'Congratulations,' she said. 'You're the speaker again.'
That would be Mike Madigan's last term as speaker before his own caucus ousted him two years later as the federal investigation began to close in.
The Madigan & Getzendanner law firm also took center stage in the courtroom as prosecutors sought to tie Madigan's public actions to his attempts to land business for a practice that focused on winning property tax appeals.
Prosecutors used testimony from disgraced former 25th Ward Ald. Danny Solis — who chaired the City Council's zoning committee — to buttress allegations about Madigan making deals with Solis to help score real estate business for the law firm.
The straitlaced Madigan testified he had no idea until news broke in January 2019 that the feds had ensnared Solis in a sordid mix of city business, campaign contributions, bribery, sex, prostitutes and Viagra pills. Federal authorities flipped Solis, who helped take down Madigan and 14th Ward Ald. Ed Burke, who spent a record 54 years on the City Council and went to prison for racketeering, bribery and extortion.
One pivotal moment in the Madigan trial was a 2018 recording in which Solis told Madigan that developers the speaker wanted in his law firm's portfolio, as Solis explained, to 'understand how this works, you know, the quid pro quo, the quid pro quo.'
On the phone, Madigan's reaction sounded potentially like a subtle acknowledgement. But Madigan told jurors Solis' comments caused a 'great deal of surprise and concern.'
'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,' Madigan said.
A few days later, Madigan testified that he spoke to Solis, who 'genuinely appeared to recognize that he had made a serious mistake.'
In that particular allegation, one involving Madigan's alleged pressure on developers of a West Loop high-rise to give him business, the jurors acquitted him of four counts.
In all, the former speaker was convicted on Feb. 12 on 10 of the 23 corruption counts he faced. Jurors deadlocked on the marquee racketeering conspiracy charge that Madigan and co-defendant Michael McClain, a ComEd lobbyist, ran the ex-speaker's government and political operations like a criminal enterprise. Jurors could not reach a consensus on any charges against McClain, who stands convicted in the separate 'ComEd Four' case.
But the jury convicted Madigan on a series of allegations tied to his talking about getting Solis, a key government mole who testified at length during the trial, appointed to a cushy paid position on a state board during the same conversations in which Solis promised to help Madigan acquire business for Madigan's law firm.
As he wrapped up his days of denials, Madigan's testimony provided one more glimpse into what he now was thinking: 'One of my regrets is that I ever had any time spent with Danny Solis.'
Prosecutors won pivotal rulings late in the trial to present key evidence to counter the Madigan team's position that he simply sought to help people find jobs.
Blakey allowed jurors to see a video of Madigan's 2009 oral history interview with the University of Illinois Chicago about how he used to handle patronage when it was legal during the 1960s and 1970s heyday of the first Mayor Daley's Democratic machine.
The video showed Madigan explaining how he taught people who wanted government jobs to sell Democratic candidates to voters like a door-to-door encyclopedia salesman.
'They wanted a job in the patronage system,' Madigan said. 'I would tell them, 'Yes, we can put you in a job. But you're going to work for the Democratic Party.' '
Madigan attorney Todd Pugh argued putting the recording into the trial would open a 'Pandora's box,' given that anti-patronage laws had changed the hiring landscape.
Lead prosecutor Amarjeet Bhachu countered the 'reason the Pandora's box is there is because' Madigan's own direct testimony involved an 'unnecessary inquiry into what Mr. Madigan had done for 50 years.'
Blakey followed up on his prior warnings: 'At multiple times, and whether it's a Pandora's box or whatever, whatever kind of box, it was … opened up on the direct testimony of the defendant.'
Prosecutors also convinced Blakey to allow the infamous 'bandits' recording of Madigan and McClain talking about longtime labor leader Dennis Gannon getting a $150,000-a-year ComEd consulting contract.
'Some of these guys have made out like bandits, Mike,' Madigan told McClain as they both chuckled.
Madigan's team argued the comment should have been barred because Gannon's position was not included in the charges against the ex-speaker. But Bhachu maintained it was fair because Madigan portrayed his motivation for a half-century of job recommendations as being 'solely for altruistic purposes, to help constituents.'
In his own testimony, Madigan said the 'bandits' conversation with McClain had nothing at all to do with the no-work ComEd subcontractors at issue in the case. Instead, Madigan testified, they were talking about lobbyists in Springfield who would get paid big money to work six months out of the year.
Prosecutors dismissed the counts against Madigan in which the jury deadlocked. Madigan is expected to appeal the sentence and request to remain free pending the outcome.
The jury also deadlocked on six counts against McClain. He was convicted two years ago in the far-reaching 'ComEd Four' trial, an outgrowth of the Madigan investigation. McClain and three others also found guilty in that case are scheduled for sentencings later this summer.
The government previously dropped a single count of bribery against Solis despite his own checkered history. Solis keeps his six-figure City Council pension, and Madigan's $158,000 annual pension was suspended immediately upon his conviction.
In his remarks near the end of Friday's three-and-a-half-hour sentencing hearing, the judge found himself musing about Illinois' sordid history of corruption, saying he was not trying to sentence 'a social problem' but instead the single defendant who was before him in the courtroom.
He also reflected on the measure of a man, acknowledging how difficult it is for politicians to achieve the level of integrity of someone like President Abraham Lincoln.
'It's really hard to be Honest Abe right?' Blakey said. 'He's a unicorn in our American history. Being great is hard. But being honest is not. Being honest is actually very easy. It's hard to commit crimes. It takes effort.'
The fact that Madigan was a 'man of his word,' as he testified and as many who wrote letters of support agreed on, 'cuts both ways,' Blakey said, since he also 'kept his word with his co-conspirators and co-schemers.'
In the end, Blakey said, the forces that landed Madigan in his courtroom were perplexing.
'He had no reason to do the things that he did in this case, and the fact that he is a good man and chose to do it is mystifying,' Blakey said. 'But he did it.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


San Francisco Chronicle
35 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
The last Hong Kong pro-democracy party holding street protests disbands
HONG KONG (AP) — Hong Kong pro-democracy political party League of Social Democrats announced on Sunday it had disbanded due to immense political pressure, the latest casualty in a years-long crackdown that has already quieted much of the city's once-vocal opposition. Following massive anti-government protests in 2019, many leading activists were prosecuted or jailed under a 2020 national security law imposed by Beijing. Dozens of civil society groups dissolved. Media outlets critical of the government shuttered. The League of Social Democrats was the only pro-democracy party that still staged small street protests from time to time and held street booth activities to carry on its advocacy despite the risks. Its chairperson, Chan Po-ying, said the disbandment decision was made after careful deliberation, especially taking into account the consequences to its members and comrades. Chan refused to elaborate on the pressure but said she was proud to say that the party had still contributed to the city's pro-democracy movement in these few years. 'We have stayed true to our original aspirations and haven't let down to the trust placed in us by those who went to prison," she said. 'While we are now forced to disband and feel an ache in our conscience, we have no other choice,' she said. Protests became rare under Beijing's grip Hong Kong, a former British colony, will mark the 28th anniversary of returning to Chinese rule on July 1. The city used to hold annual pro-democracy protests that day and other various demonstrations demanding better policies. But those were ceased after most organizing groups were disbanded and the leading activists were jailed. Critics say the drastic political changes under the security law reflect that the freedoms Beijing promised to keep intact in 1997 are shrinking. The Beijing and Hong Kong governments insist the law is necessary for the city's stability. A Chinese official overseeing Hong Kong affairs in 2023 said protests are not the only way for people to express their views, signaling Beijing's stance toward demonstrations in the city. In April, Hong Kong's biggest pro-democracy party, the Democratic Party, also voted to give its leadership the mandate to move toward a potential disbandment. Party veterans told The Associated Press that some members were warned of consequences if the party didn't shut down. A final vote is expected at a later date. A party known for confrontational tactics Founded in 2006, the League of Social Democrats was a left-wing political party that opposed collusion between government and business, upheld the principle that people have a say and was firmly committed to the interests of underprivileged residents. It was widely known for its more aggressive tactics when fighting for change. Its members have thrown bananas, eggs and luncheon meat at officials or pro-Beijing lawmakers as a protest gesture. Its party platform said the group advocated non-violent resistance but would not avoid physical confrontations — a stance that set it apart from older, traditional pro-democracy groups. It once had three lawmakers in office. Its longest-serving lawmaker, Leung Kwok-hung — Chan's husband — was disqualified from the legislature due to his manner of taking his oath in office in 2017. Members arrested and jailed over activism On the streets, the group's activism led to the arrests and jailing of its members from time to time. Last year, Leung and prominent LGBTQ+ activist Jimmy Sham, a former party leader, were sentenced to nearly seven years and more than four years over their roles in an unofficial primary election under the sweeping security law. Sham was freed from prison last month. In recent years, the party has had limited political influence, no longer holding any seats in the legislature or local district councils. Even a bank ceased to provide bank account services to the group.


USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Ranked choice voting promised more moderates. It delivered extremists instead.
Ranked choice voting further loosens party control and gives the activists within either party more say in the process. And voters in the middle suffer the consequences. In one of my first published columns ever, I advocated for ranked choice voting, which was at the time a lesser-known alternative way to conduct elections in which you rank several candidates in order of preference. I have since changed my view. Since then, the idea has grown in popularity, even making its way into New York City's Democratic Party primary election on Tuesday, June 24. Ranked choice made headlines as state lawmaker Zohran Mamdani won that primary. The promise of ranked choice voting producing more moderate candidates has been undermined by extreme candidates. American politics are better off under more traditional voting systems. What is ranked choice voting? Ranked choice voting seeks to solve the issue of strategic voting ‒ when voters cast their ballot not for their top choice in a crowded field, but rather their preference between one of the two candidates with a high chance of winning. One of the central arguments in favor of ranked choice is that, because people can express their true preferences, it is more likely to produce more moderate candidates. However, in practice, it rarely accomplishes this goal. Take New York's mayoral primary race, for example. The city's ranked choice system led to the election of Mamdani, a democratic socialist, as the Democratic nominee to be the next mayor, giving him the inside track at the job. Now, part of that issue is candidate quality. Mamdani's opponent was Andrew Cuomo, who is best known for resigning the New York governorship in disgrace in 2021 due to numerous sexual harassment claims and mismanagement of COVID-19. But that dilemma goes even further to the point of ranked choice voting not producing better outcomes than an ordinary ballot system. The New York election is not the sole arbiter of this system's effectiveness, however. Other municipalities that have adopted ranked choice have seen more extreme candidates prevail. Researchers have found that 'as an electorate grows more polarized, candidates located at the median are less likely to be elected under IRV (another term for ranked choice voting) because they simply are not the first choice of enough voters.' In our polarized political environment, ranked choice voting may make matters even worse by favoring more extreme candidates, thus widening the partisan divide in races. Ranked choice voting weakens political parties One fact that many in the news media are reluctant to admit (but may agree with privately) is that voters are extraordinarily bad at selecting good candidates. This is why America is better off with strong political parties. Strong political parties, with more influence over who their nominees are, limit the extent to which voters can influence a party to nominate a candidate outside of the mainstream opinion. Political parties have grown weaker in recent years as populist movements in both parties grow, and the result is a rise in extreme candidates in response to American political polarization. More extreme candidates acting outside the structure of parties is a major reason for this. Ranked choice voting reduces the amount of sway that a political party has over its nominee. Ordinarily, in a primary election, there is a uniform sequence of dropouts that build coalitions among two and three candidates by the time Election Day rolls around. This typical procession gives parties plenty of opportunities to interject their preferences into the race, and to help boost their preferred candidate. Still, the existence of a primary system in the first place entails that, from time to time, the voters will override the preferences of the internal party structure, such as Donald Trump's initial nomination in the 2016 presidential election. That problem has worsened as activists have captured the primary system to promote their candidates, rather than those of the median partisan. Ranked choice voting further loosens party control and gives the activists within either party more say in the process. These activists are only further likely to produce more extreme candidates, and the voters in the middle suffer the consequences. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
What's in Trump's "big, beautiful bill" headed for Senate vote
Washington — Senate Republicans released the latest version of President Trump's massive spending and tax bill late Friday as the GOP eyes an ambitious July 4 deadline to approve the centerpiece legislation of the president's second-term agenda. After the House narrowly approved the legislation that addresses the president's tax, defense, border and energy priorities last month, Senate Republicans have been putting their imprint on the bill. But GOP leaders are seeking a middle ground to appease the upper chamber without alienating House Republicans, who will have to approve the Senate's changes before the bill can head to the president's desk for his signature. At the center of the bill is an extension to Mr. Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, slated to sunset at year's end, seeking to make the cuts permanent in what has been a key priority for Senate Republicans. It also includes increased spending for border security, defense and energy production, which are offset in part by cuts to healthcare and nutrition programs. But along with different dynamics in the Senate, Republicans have also been contending with input from the Senate's rulekeeper, known as the parliamentarian. She has been weighing in on the bill's components to determine whether they may fly under the reconciliation process, which allows the GOP to move forward with the bill without any support from across the aisle. Here's what's in the Senate's updated version of the "big, beautiful bill," some of which remains in flux: Medicaid restrictions The legislation includes restrictions on Medicaid, which provides government-sponsored health care for low-income and disabled Americans. Like the House-passed bill, the legislation imposes work requirements for some able-bodied adults and more frequent eligibility checks. But the Senate parliamentarian determined that a measure cutting federal funds to states that use Medicaid infrastructure to provide health care coverage to undocumented immigrants, along with banning Medicaid from covering gender transition services, isn't in compliance with Senate rules. The parliamentarian also weighed in on the provider tax, which states use to help fund their portion of Medicaid costs, in a blow to the Senate GOP's initial plan. Senate Republicans have proposed steeper cuts to Medicaid funding, in part by incrementally lowering provider taxes from 6% to 3.5% by 2032. The timeline is delayed by one year from the Senate GOP's initial proposal, after the issue became one of the bill's sticking points in the Senate in recent weeks. It's a departure from the House-passed bill, which sought to lower federal costs by freezing states' provider taxes at current rates and prohibiting them from establishing new provider taxes. The bill also includes a rural hospital stabilization fund after some GOP senators expressed concern over how rural hospitals could be impacted by the Medicaid restrictions, allocating $25 billion for rural hospitals over the same period that the provider taxes would be lowered. Increasing the state and local tax deduction, or SALT The package also includes an increase to the cap on the state and local tax deduction, raising it from $10,000 to $40,000. After five years, it would return to $10,000, a departure from the House-passed bill. The issue was a major sticking point in the House, where blue-state Republicans threatened to withhold their support without the increase to the deduction. But with no Republicans hailing from blue states in the Senate, the upper chamber has been contending with its own dynamics. Before the rule, taxpayers could deduct all their state and local taxes from their federal taxes, which some policymakers have said mainly benefits wealthy homeowners in states with high taxes, such as New York and California. But advocates for increasing the caps argue that the $10,000 cap is increasingly impacting middle-class homeowners who live in regions where property taxes are rising. Restrictions on food stamps The Senate bill still shifts the costs of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as SNAP, or food stamps, to some states. The program is currently fully funded by the federal government. The federal government would continue to fully fund the benefits for states that have an error payment rate below 6%, beginning in 2028. States with error rates above 6% would be on the hook for 5% to 15% of the costs. States are also given some flexibility in calculating their share. However, Alaska and Hawaii would receive temporary exemptions from the cost-sharing requirement. Both states would receive a two-year reprieve if the Department of Agriculture determines they are "actively implementing a corrective action plan." The package also aligns with the House version on age requirements for able-bodied adults to qualify for SNAP benefits. Currently, in order to qualify, able-bodied adults between 18-54 must meet work requirements. Both the Senate and House bills would update the age requirement to 18-64, with some exemptions for parents. Alaska and Hawaii could also receive waivers for the work requirements if it's determined that they're making a "good faith effort" to comply. Addressing the debt limit The legislation would raise the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, going beyond the $4 trillion outlined in the House-passed bill, as Congress faces a deadline to address the debt limit later this summer. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has urged Congress to address the debt limit by mid-July, outlining that the U.S. could be unable to pay its bills as early as August, when Congress is on recess. By addressing the debt ceiling as part of the larger package, Republicans in Congress are aiming to bypass negotiating with Democrats on the issue. Unlike most other legislation in the Senate, the budget reconciliation process that governs the package requires a simple majority, rather than the 60-vote threshold to move forward with a bill. Child tax credit The current $2,000 child tax credit is set to return to the pre-2017 level of $1,000 in 2026. The tax credit would permanently increase to $2,200 under the Senate bill, $300 less than the House-passed hike. The House version reverts the increase to $2,000 after 2028. Limits on overtime and tips deductions The bill would allow individuals to deduct up to $25,000 for tip wages and $12,500 for overtime. But the provisions would expire in 2028. The Senate bill would reduce the deductions for individuals making over $150,000, while the House bill does not include income limits. Changes to standard deduction The Senate wants to permanently expand the basic standard deduction, which was nearly doubled in 2017. The increases will expire at the end of the year. The House bill, however, would expand the deduction only through 2028. Asylum fee The legislation also includes a minimum $100 fee for those seeking asylum, down from the $1,000 fee outlined in the House bill. The Senate parliamentarian ruled out the $1,000 fee for anyone applying for asylum and other fees on diversity immigrant visas. AI moratorium A revised proposal on a 10-year moratorium on state regulations on artificial intelligence also made it into the Senate bill. The updated provision provides federal aid to states as long as they do not regulate AI. According to Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee, the parliamentarian determined that the provision is in compliance "as long as the conditions only apply to the new $500 million provided by the reconciliation bill." Public lands The Senate version would order the sale of up to 0.5% of public lands in 11 states, including Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming. Eligible lands would have to be located within 5 miles of a population center and the sale of federally protected lands is prohibited. Supporters of the provision say it would address the housing availability and affordability crisis. Video shows Arizona police rescuing baby left alone for days Meet the history buffs spending years studying to become Gettysburg Battlefield guides Breaking down major Supreme Court ruling on nationwide injunctions