logo
‘You had the power to stop this:' Ex-ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore sentenced to 2 years in prison in scheme to bribe Speaker Madigan

‘You had the power to stop this:' Ex-ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore sentenced to 2 years in prison in scheme to bribe Speaker Madigan

Chicago Tribune6 days ago
Once a rising corporate star, former ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore was sentenced Monday to 2 years in federal prison for her role in an elaborate scheme to funnel more than $1.3 million and other perks to associates of then-House Speaker Michael Madigan in exchange for help with the utility's ambitious legislative agenda.
In handing down the sentence, U.S. District Judge Manish Shah acknowledged Pramaggiore's transformative leadership at ComEd and her history of charitable works, but said the evidence at trial showed she also participated in a nearly decade-long scheme that undermined the public's trust in government.
'This was secretive sophisticated criminal corruption of important public policy,' Shah said. 'When it came to Mr. Madigan … you didn't think to change the culture of corruption. Instead you were all in.'
Shah said the dichotomy in Pramaggiore's life led him to 'conclude that people like you, good people in positions of power and authority, need to be deterred too.'
'You had the power to stop this,' the judge said. 'You could have said 'No, this is not how legislation should be done.' You had the power to change the culture at ComEd.'
He also found that she had lied repeatedly during her testimony at trial, particularly in denying knowledge of the connection of ComEd's no-work subcontractors to the powerful Democratic speaker and telling the jury she made no effort to cover it up.
Pramaggiore, who turns 67 in two weeks, showed little outward reaction as Shah announced his sentence, which also included a $750,000 fine.
A few minutes earlier, Pramaggiore had been given the chance to address the judge but declined to do so. 'Thank you your honor. I will stand on my able attorney's commentary and submissions,' she said while remaining seated at the defense table.
Shah ordered Pramaggiore to report to prison by Dec. 1. However her attorney, Scott Lassar, told the judge he will ask for Pramaggiore to remain free on bond pending appeal, given what he said are significant legal issues in the case. Shah asked Lassar to submit something in writing in three weeks.
After the hearing, Pramaggiore walked out of the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse without comment. Lassar also declined to make a statement to reporters.
The defense later issued a statement through a spokesman maintaining Pramaggiore's innocence and vowing to appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.
'We are disappointed by the sentence imposed today,' the statement read. 'It is nearly impossible to reconcile the sentence — two years in prison — with the federal Probation Department's recommendation of no jail time and probation.'
The sentencing comes more than two years after Pramaggiore's conviction in the 'ComEd Four' case, one of the biggest political corruption scandals in state history.
Last week, her former colleague, ex-ComEd executive John Hooker, was given to a year and a half in prison. Sentencing for the other two defendants, Michael McClain and Jay Doherty, remain pending.
The investigation, which came to light more than six years ago, ended Pramaggiore's stellar career in Chicago's male-dominated C-suite corporate world, where she'd recently been named chief executive of Exelon, a major Fortune 100 energy company that delivered power to millions of customers in the Chicago area and beyond.
Prosecutors asked for a stiff prison term of almost 6 years and a $1.75 million fine, writing in a recent filing that despite all her success, money and professional status, 'she made the choice to participate in a years-long conspiracy that corrupted the legislative process in Springfield' and subverted her own company's internal controls.
In asking for a 70-month prison term, Assistant U.S. Attorneys Sarah Streicker, Julia Schwartz and Diane MacArthur also wrote that Pramaggiore lied repeatedly in her testimony during the 2023 trial. which ended in sweeping guilty verdicts.
'She could have remained silent,' Streicker argued in court Monday. 'She had every right to do so, but instead she chose to try and obstruct the jury's process…With her back against the wall she chose to testify and lie in order to protect herself.'
Pramaggiore's attorneys, meanwhile, argued for probation, writing in a court filing of their own that the conduct for which she was convicted was 'a true aberration' in an otherwise exemplary life, not only in her professional path but also in her dedication to her family and charitable works. They also submitted nearly a hundred letters from friends and supporters attesting to her good character.
'She has lost her reputation, her career, and her law license, and she faces even more potential consequences, including further enforcement actions,' Lassar wrote in a 49-page filing. 'Imposing a prison sentence that takes her away from her family, friends, and community will not serve the ends of justice.'
In court Monday, Lassar argued the arrangement to pay Madigan's associates as subcontractors 'was set up by other people,' including McClain, Hooker and former ComEd CEO Frank Clark, who preceded Pramaggiore.
Lassar said ComEd's Smart Grid legislation, which was at the center of the alleged bribery scheme, only became law because of years of tough negotiating and broad coalition building in Springfield, bringing in including big labor, environmentalists, and myriad legislative caucuses.
'She never asked Madigan for help in passing legislation,' Lassar said. '…And she was never aware that Madigan helped do anything to get it passed.'
Pramaggiore and her three co-defendants — McClain, a former ComEd lobbyist and longtime Madigan confidant, Hooker, who was ComEd's vice president for legislative affairs, and Doherty, a consultant and former City Club of Chicago leader — were convicted on all counts in May 2023 after a two-month trial.
The case was then beset by a series of delays, first due to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that reset the rules for a key federal bribery statute and then again after the death of the judge who'd presided over the trial, Harry Leinenweber.
After he was selected to take over the case, Shah earlier this year tossed the underlying bribery counts due to the Supreme Court's decision, but kept intact the main conspiracy count as well as guilty verdicts for falsifying ComEd's books and records, which were charged under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
In their statement Monday, Pramaggiore's legal team referenced both the Supreme Court's decision and President Donald Trump's recent pausing of enforcement of the FCPA, citing overreach and prosecutorial abuse.
'That has happened here,' the statement read. 'Ms. Pramaggiore faces jail despite the documents at issue being true. Chicago is not a foreign jurisdiction…There is nothing foreign or corrupt about the facts here.'
The bulk of the ComEd allegations centered on a cadre of Madigan allies who were paid a total of $1.3 million from 2011 through 2019 through allegedly do-nothing consulting contracts. Among the recipients were two former aldermen, Frank Olivo and Michael Zalewski, precinct captains Ray Nice and Edward Moody, and former state Rep. Edward Acevedo.
In addition, prosecutors alleged ComEd also hired a clouted law firm run by political operative Victor Reyes, distributed numerous college internships within Madigan's 13th Ward fiefdom, and backed former McPier chief Juan Ochoa, a friend of a Madigan ally, for an $80,000-a-year seat on the utility's board of directors, the indictment alleged.
In return, prosecutors alleged, Madigan used his influence over the General Assembly to help ComEd score a series of huge legislative victories that not only rescued the company from financial instability but led to record-breaking, billion-dollar profits.
Among them was the 2011 smart grid bill that set a built-in formula for the rates ComEd could charge customers, avoiding battles with the Illinois Commerce Commission, according to the charges. ComEd also leaned on Madigan's office to help pass the Future Energy Jobs Act in 2016, which kept the formula rate in place and also rescued two nuclear plants run by an affiliated company, Exelon Generation.
Pramaggiore is the second of the ComEd Four to be sentenced. Shah handed a 1 1/2-year prison term to Hooker last week. A hearing for McClain, a retired ComEd lobbyist who doubled as Madigan's right-hand man, will be sentenced Thursday, while the fourth defendant, Doherty, is scheduled to be sentenced in August.
Madigan, meanwhile, was convicted in a separate trial of an array of schemes that included the ComEd bribery payments. He was sentenced in June to seven and a half years in prison.
Defense attorneys for the ComEd Four have repeatedly argued the government was seeking to criminalize legal lobbying and job recommendations that are at the heart of the state's legitimate political system.
They ripped the government's star witness, former ComEd executive Fidel Marquez, as a liar and opportunist who was so terrified when FBI agents confronted him in January 2019 that he flipped without even consulting a lawyer and also agreed to secretly record his friends.
Marquez testified in March 2023 that the roster of 'subcontractors' hired by ComEd was curated by McClain and read like a who's who of Madigan's vaunted political operation, including two legendary precinct captains, a former assistant majority leader in the House and two former Chicago aldermen at the center of Madigan's Southwest Side base of power.
Over the course of eight years, ComEd paid them hundreds of thousands of dollars, even though they had no particular expertise and ultimately did virtually no work for the utility. Some seemed to be downright incompetent, Marquez told the jury.
On cross-examination, Marquez, who pleaded guilty to bribery conspiracy and is awaiting sentencing, acknowledged there was 'no guarantee' that Madigan was going to help pass ComEd bills. But he added the company still tried to make Madigan happy because 'not doing it would cause us to be negatively looked on by' the speaker.
He also admitted he initially told the FBI he didn't believe any of it was bribery.
Pramaggiore's lawyers argued in their sentencing memo that she should be punished only for the remaining counts of conviction, which all have to do with falsifying ComEd's books.
But prosecutors say the entire scope of the scheme is still fair game, even if the specific bribery counts were dropped — a position that Shah has agreed with.
At Hooker's sentencing July 14, Shah said the evidence at trial showed the four co-defendants 'were jointly undertaking the quid pro quo bribery of Mr. Madigan, paying out his cronies in exchange for favorable official action.'
'The instructional error doesn't change my factual assessment,' Shah said. 'Not only could a jury reach that conclusion, I reached that conclusion based on my own review.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Donald Trump says Beyoncé should be 'prosecuted' for alleged Harris endorsement payment
Donald Trump says Beyoncé should be 'prosecuted' for alleged Harris endorsement payment

USA Today

time3 hours ago

  • USA Today

Donald Trump says Beyoncé should be 'prosecuted' for alleged Harris endorsement payment

Donald Trump still has a political bone to pick with Queen Bey. The president, who has previously voiced criticism of celebrities who showed support for his election counterpart, Kamala Harris, took to social media on Saturday, July 26, to renew his unfounded claim that pop star Beyoncé was allegedly paid $11 million to endorse Harris' presidential bid. In the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election, the "Cowboy Carter" songstress made her endorsement of Harris official when she appeared at the former vice president's abortion rights rally in her hometown of Houston in October. She also cleared the usage of her 2016 song "Freedom" for Harris, and the tune became the Democratic nominee's official campaign song. "I'm looking at the large amount of money owed by the Democrats after the presidential election and the fact that they admit to paying, probably illegally, $11 million dollars to singer Beyoncé for an ENDORSEMENT (she never sang, not one note...)," wrote Trump in a fiery Truth Social post, also citing alleged endorsement payments to media mogul Oprah Winfrey and civil rights activist Al Sharpton. USA TODAY has reached out to a representative for Beyoncé for comment. "Can you imagine what would happen if politicians started paying for people to endorse them. All hell would break out!" Trump concluded. "Kamala and all of those that received endorsement money BROKE THE LAW. They should all be prosecuted! Thank you for your attention to this matter." Trump's digital tirade comes just two months after he accused the Grammy-winning singer and other celebrities of being paid to publicly support Harris' candidacy. In a May Truth Social post, the GOP president announced plans for a "major investigation" into the Harris campaign's celebrity endorsements. Catch up: Trump calls Beyoncé's endorsement of Kamala Harris 'illegal' Did Beyoncé receive payment for Kamala Harris endorsement? At the time of Trump's original allegations in May, the Federal Election Commission had no record of an $11 million payment to Beyoncé from Harris' presidential campaign. Additionally, the agency does not have rules explicitly prohibiting candidates from paying for endorsements. It is unclear where Trump got the unsubstantiated $11 million figure. The Harris campaign last year rejected a rumor that it paid Beyoncé $10 million for her endorsement that spread on social media shortly after the music star's October 2024 appearance with Harris. Beyoncé's mother, Tina Knowles, also pushed back at the $10 million rumor in a November 2024 Instagram post, calling it "false information" and a "lie." She added that the singer "actually paid for her own flights for her and her team." Oprah Winfrey says she was not paid a 'personal fee' for Kamala Harris rally What has Beyoncé said about Kamala Harris campaign? During her October 2024 appearance at Harris' rally, Beyoncé, who was joined by fellow singer and Destiny's Child alum Kelly Rowland, said "It's time for America to sing a new song" when describing Harris' presidential bid. "I'm not here as a celebrity. I'm not here as a politician. I'm here as a mother," the pop star added. "Your freedom is your God-given right, your human right." Harris has long been a fan of Beyoncé. The California-born politician attended the singer's Renaissance World Tour in 2023 just outside of Washington, D.C., after she gifted Harris tickets. Contributing: Caché McClay, Joey Garrison and Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy, USA TODAY

Gov. Hochul's latest redistricting threat is dangerous and undemocratic
Gov. Hochul's latest redistricting threat is dangerous and undemocratic

New York Post

time4 hours ago

  • New York Post

Gov. Hochul's latest redistricting threat is dangerous and undemocratic

Gov. Kathy Hochul and fellow Democrats are again threatening to rig New York's congressional voting-district maps to win seats for their party. And in mid-decade, no less, in clear violation of the state Constitution. It's sleazy, anti-democratic — and illegal. Even Hochul admits it, but suggests Dems may do it anyway since Texas and Ohio are moving to draw up new districts in their states. Gov. Kathy Hochul and Democrats are again threatening to rig New York's congressional voting-district maps, writes The Post Editorial Board. Andrew Schwartz / 'All's fair in love and war,' she huffed last week. 'If there's other states violating the rules and are trying to give themselves an advantage, all I'll say is, I'm going to look at it closely.' Huh? If Texas and Ohio rig their maps, that doesn't give Hochul & Co. the right to break New York's laws — even if her goal is to offset any advantage Republicans get in those states. Note, too, that Hochul is huffing not about protecting New York's influence in Congress but her party's. And at the expense, presumably, of Republican voters in New York, since the goal would be to draw district lines favorable to Democrats. True, Texas and Ohio Republicans are expected draw lines they hope will favor them. But if those states cheat their Democratic voters, those voters can sue. Hochul and her party are worried that if more Republicans are elected from those states, it'll make it harder for Democrats to win control of the House in next year's midterms. But again, if the donkeys think those states are breaking any laws, they can go to court, too. Meanwhile, if Hochul tried to gerrymander in time for the midterm, she'd be doubly violating the state Constitution. First, redistricting can take place only once every 10 years, after the Census, not mid-decade. Second, in 2014 New Yorkers passed a constitutional amendment that empowered an independent decennial redistricting commission and specifically banned partisan gerrymandering. But Democrats ignored the amendment and tried to gerrymander anyway a few years ago, and it took a ruling by the state's top court to stop them. We don't condone gerrymandering, by either party, in any state. It cheats voters, skews representation and undermines democracy. As even Democratic boss Jay Jacobs warns, 'We need to be careful about democracy,' adding, 'You don't change the rules of the game to your advantage just because you can.' Given the tight timeframe, it's unlikely Democrats could pull this off. But then, if New York Dems were willing to violate the Constitution before, who can be sure they won't 'break the rules' again to push through corrupt new district lines in time? New Yorkers of both parties should demand Hochul take back her threat and obey the law.

Democrats hear some criticism as redistricting talk picks up
Democrats hear some criticism as redistricting talk picks up

The Hill

time7 hours ago

  • The Hill

Democrats hear some criticism as redistricting talk picks up

Outside groups are raising concerns that Democrats risk violating the Voting Rights Act with redistricting plans, creating a new problem for the party as it seeks to answer GOP efforts to redistrict its way to more power. Democrats say they have to take action to draw new House districts in states they control in response to power plays by a Trump-driven GOP in Texas and other states. But the tit-for-tat has left groups leaving the door open to litigation. They also are making a moral case, arguing Democrats are thwarting the democratic process. 'This is dead wrong from a democracy perspective, I think it's very problematic for Democrats from a political strategic perspective,' explained Dan Vicuna, director of voting and fair representation at Common Cause. California Gov. Gavin Newsom is the only Democratic governor so far to signal he's considering several ways to counter the GOP's efforts in Texas. Speaking to reporters on Friday, Newsom said any move by California 'is predicated on Texas moving forward' with its own redistricting plan, which some have seen as a way for the Lone Star State to make it more likely to hold on to five House seats. Several other Democratic governors, including Govs. Kathy Hochul of New York, Phil Murphy of New Jersey and JB Pritzker of Illinois have left the door open to possibly changing their maps. The GOP may also not be done. The White House is reportedly pushing Missouri to consider redrawing its map. Civil rights and voting groups are worried actions by both parties could undermine or weaken the political power of historically marginalized minority communities. The issue is a thorny one for Democrats, who have positioned themselves as the prodemocracy party and championed racial justice initiatives. At the same time, Democratic states just like Republican states have been sued by civil rights groups over Voting Rights Act violations. Both Democrats and Republicans have also been found guilty of creating gerrymandered maps. 'We have sued both Democrats and Republicans on these issues,' said Thomas A. Saenz, president and general counsel of Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. 'So yes, we are concerned that when leaders of either party seek to take maximum advantage, partisan advantage of redistricting, they often neglect, if not ignore, the imperatives of the Voting Rights Act with respect to reliably Democratic voting groups.' Some groups are also frustrated given efforts by blue states to move beyond gerrymandering. 'Independent commissions like the gold standard in California were created specifically to avoid what's being considered here, which is voting maps drawn for the sole purpose of protecting incumbent politicians and political party interests to the exclusion of community needs and community feedback,' Vicuna said. California Common Cause was intimately involved in the creation of California's independent commission. It could be difficult for some Democratic-held states to answer Texas. Several would likely need to change their state constitution and work around their respective redistricting commissions. Should the Lone Star State craft new House lines, John Bisognano, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee and its affiliates, in a statement said they would be met 'with a wall of resistance and a wave of legal challenges.' His statement did not address Democratic-led states mulling their own midcycle redistricting. Democrats argue that if Republicans are headed down that road, nothing should be off the table for them as well. 'Republicans should be careful what they ask for,' Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), chair of the House Democrats' campaign arm, told The Hill in a statement. 'And if they go down this path? Absolutely folks are going to respond across the country. We're not going to be sitting back with one hand tied behind our back while Republicans try to undermine the voices of the American people.' Democrats are also leaning into the issue of democracy, saying the longevity of the country is at stake if the party does not respond. Newsom painted the situation in grim terms, saying on Friday, 'I believe that the people of the state of California understand what's at stake. If we don't put a stake into the heart of this administration, there may not be an election in 2028.' 'We can sit back and act as if we have some moral superiority and watch this 249, almost 250-year experiment be washed away,' Newsom said. 'We are not going to allow that to happen. We have agency, we can shape the future.' Civil rights and voting-focused groups, however, are concerned about the ramifications midcycle redistricting could have moving forward, including the possibility of what was once considered a decennial process after each U.S. census turning into a cyclical issue. 'One of the concerns that we have is, even if blue states have power and have a majority in their legislature to redraw maps, our concern is that this could set a bad precedent, because those states could, at the same time, flip in the future,' said Jose Barrera Novoa, vice president of the far west for the League of United Latin American Citizens. 'And the same thing is going to happen where … other parties are going to look to redraw the map midcycle or even quarterly. Who knows?' he asked. 'It's all hypothetical, yet it's still very possible.' Not only could a potential redistricting tit-for-tat raise questions over whether this could be repeated in the future, experts also worry about the financial toll it could take on their resources and voters themselves. 'These are judges managing these cases, hearing these cases. Many of these people are paid out by state funds, and federal cases, of course, are also paid by voters directly,' explained Celina Stewart, CEO of the League of Women Voters, noting cases that use taxpayer funds. 'Do we really want to spend this time doing this highly unusual activity when we're all going to have to pay for it?'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store