(cheerful music) (dramatic orchestral music) - Welcome to "Capital View" on WSIU.

I'm Jeff Williams, sitting in for Fred Martino, as we take a look at what's going on around the state in Illinois politics.

To help guide the journey this week, we are joined by our guests, John Jackson, visiting professor from the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute, and Dan Petrella, reporter with the Chicago Tribune.

Gentlemen, thank you, welcome.

- Glad to be with you, Jeff.

- Good to be here.

- Gentlemen, let's jump right in.

There's quite a bit to unpack this week, starting with the federal corruption trial of former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan.

After, what, 40 some days of trial, the defense rested its case last week.

As we speak today, closing arguments are scheduled to get underway for the I guess what would be the final phase of this landmark trial.

Dan, what are you expecting to hear as both sides are kind of making their final case to the jury?

- Well, it's been, as you said, many days of trial have stretched out with some holiday breaks and things, so really, y'know, this has been going on since October.

And so there's a lot of review, I'm sure, to do for the jury of all the evidence that was presented, the, I think, 60 or so witnesses that took the stand, including former Speaker Michael Madigan himself, which I think was a shock to many observers of the trial that he took the stand in his own defense.

Y'know, not the kind of thing that you often see outside of, like, an episode of "Law and Order" or something like that, where somebody actually takes the witness stand as a criminal defendant.

But there's also hours and hours of wiretapped phone conversations to review.

And what the prosecution will lay out is that Mr. Madigan and his longtime confidant, and a longtime State House lobbyist, Michael McClain, who's a former State Representative from Quincy, sort of ran the political and government operations in the Madigan world as a criminal enterprise to enrich themselves and their allies in Madigan's political operation.

That's, y'know, the argument that they've been making since the beginning, that many of the official actions that the speaker took were geared toward helping get jobs and contracts for people who had worked for him, either in the State House or in his political operation based in the 13th Ward in Chicago, so there'll be a lot of review of the evidence.

And what you will hear from the defense is most likely that this is just the way politics is done, that the Speaker, as he said on the stand, never took an official action in exchange for a particular benefit.

Y'know, they tried to lay out with his property tax appeal law firm business that they had, y'know, internal rules and guidelines to keep things on the up and up.

And so it's really a kind of a complicated case, but it's been really a fascinating sort of peeling away of the curtain that a lot of what happens in the State House and across the state in politics, y'know, what happens that we don't see.

Y'know, hearing some of these conversations throughout the trial that you, sort of covering this stuff for years, presume happen, to actually hear them in the people's own voices, especially Madigan's voice, who is, y'know, noted for being very reticent and taciturn and a man of few words.

So I'm sure we'll hear, y'know, especially on the prosecution side in the closing arguments, kinda of going back over some of those greatest hits of those wiretapped phone conversations.

- Yeah, as you alluded to, Madigan's long time known as the Velvet Hammer.

He ruled from on high for many decades, and for a lot of us political junkies, this trial has really been, like, as you mentioned, pulling the curtain back and seeing the Great Oz.

Now, we don't know what the outcome of this trial will be yet, but, Dan, what do you think the impact of this trial though, if any, is going to have on the General Assembly, on the legislative process, or even on just general everyday Illinoisans?

- Well, y'know, I think many Illinoisans are jaded about their government, particularly state government and, y'know, in Chicago city government, and I think this trial has sort of underscored many of the, y'know, worst ideas that people had about what is going on behind the scenes and how the sausage gets made, so to speak.

Y'know, I think the impact that it has in terms of, y'know, what happens at the State House is going to really depend on what the verdict is.

And I think the Supreme Court decision last summer in the bribery case out of Indiana that sort of shredded the federal bribery statute that's been used in a lot of these corruption cases in the Northern District US Court here in Chicago kind of complicated things more for the prosecution, this idea that there has to be sort of more of a direct quid pro quo exchange.

Y'know, that's a little harder to prove, I think.

I would like to think that if the Speaker, the former Speaker, and Mr. McClain are found guilty, as Mr. McClain has already been found guilty in federal court of being part of this sort of separate scheme to try to influence Madigan, that it makes lawmakers take pause and really think hard about what needs to be done to improve the ethical structures in state government.

This is a topic that my colleagues and I at the Tribune have been exploring for the past several months.

We just wrapped up a series at the end of last year called "Culture of Corruption".

My colleagues Ray Long and Joe Mahr sort of laid out a roadmap in the final story in that series about many of the things, none of which are new or novel really, but things that have been suggested sometimes in some cases for decades.

And it's always a question of whether lawmakers and, y'know, Governor Pritzker are gonna take those ideas seriously or just, y'know, think that they've done enough already or do some window dressing like they typically do when these things happen.

I think if there is a conviction of the person who was arguably, y'know, the most powerful politician in the state for at least the last quarter century, y'know, it should make people stop and think about how to really fix some of these problems that Illinois seems to have that don't happen in every state across the country.

- John, as the backdrop of the Madigan trial is in its final phase, the spring legislative session is gearing up and off and running.

And, of course, the annual state budget is, y'know, one of the major prime objectives during the session.

Already, the Governor's Office of Management and Budget is projecting a a $3.2 billion deficit for the coming fiscal year, which is probably not a good way to start building a new state budget, but the state is also no stranger to deficits.

What are you expecting to see, given all that is facing the General Assembly this session?

- Well, Jeff, as you indicated, this started, this story got going on November 1, when the Governor's Office of Management and Budget issued this long-term projection, which is what they have to do, about the FY26 budget.

We're in FY25 now.

And they projected the trends on the economic side on whether or not there would be a recession or what would happen nationally and what would that do to the state, all the things they're supposed to have, the tea leaves that they read.

And as you said, they came up with possible $3.2 billion short, which is not unusual over the budget years, up until the Pritzker years, which have actually been different.

But when you get down to it, if that $3.2 billion is real, you've got to talk about increased revenue, you've got to increase the taxes potentially, or you've got to cut services.

And that's where it gets very difficult.

And that will be what the General Assembly starts now on and what the Governor comes back to in his the State of the Budget in February.

But legislators respond to their constituents.

Legislators find all kinds of reasons they need new money and they need new programs.

For example, most notably the Chicago School System and what the Mayor is doing to try to get them some more state help.

Chicago's got mass transit very much on their agenda and that whole question of CTA, RTA, and all of that will be a part of that context.

And statewide, we're not immune to needing new money and additional money.

Illinois State Board of Education advocates on behalf of the schools statewide.

The new formula demands new money for all across the state.

And so how do you balance all of that?

The Republicans and the critics and the media pounced on this and said, "we told you so.

This has always been the way it works and we certainly don't want any new taxes, so let's do cutting of services generically."

But when it comes to specifically, that's when it gets a whole lot worse and a whole lot more controversial.

I must say, Governor Pritzker and the leaders of the General Assembly really took a more, "don't panic, this is not as bad as it seems and wait and see.

We've handled this before and we can do it again."

And for evidence, they pointed to the fact that we've now had under Pritzker a series of balanced budgets.

It turned out to be really and realistically balanced.

And we've got the backdrop of nine upgrades of the Illinois credit rating for Illinois, which has been unprecedented.

So that will kick off General Assembly debate now and it will intensify when the Governor makes his speech.

- Dan, John had touched on the education budget and he'd mentioned Chicago schools.

So far, the State Board of Education is making their budget desires known.

They're asking for, I think, an extra $500 million or so in their K-12 education plan.

That would, I think, boost their budget to a little over, I think, $11 billion, a fairly significant part of the budget.

Is that something you think is gonna fly, as we start looking and agencies start weighing in on what they want to see?

- Y'know, it's hard to say.

I think it's a little bit less than a 5% increase, but in a tough budget picture, it is really hard.

I mean, obviously folks on both sides of the aisle talk about education being a high priority for them and making sure it's funded.

One of the things that's notable to me in the State Board of Education's budget proposal is that they're asking for the bare minimum increase to the evidence-based funding model that John alluded to earlier.

And that's sort of in their track record for a few years now, is not really trying to go above what the, y'know, minimum threshold is in the law, which is understandable in the budget climate that we're in, where there's not a lot of extra money floating around, but there are lots of advocates who have been pushing for years to do more.

Y'know, that formula was set up back in 2017, I believe it was, under Republican Governor Bruce Rauner, but, y'know, then-State Senator Andy Manar from Bunker Hill, who's now Deputy Governor Andy Manar and the budget point man for Governor Pritzker, was sort of one of the architects of that formula.

So it's been interesting to see that the Pritzker administration has not pushed to try to do more there.

I think it's been a surprise to a lot of people, I think, y'know, especially for someone like Governor Pritzker, who likes to talk a lot about education and the importance of particularly early education.

I will say, ISBE is asking for more money for early childhood education.

I think was about $70 million or so increase.

But it's tough.

Y'know, every worthy cause, and some unworthy causes, are going to be coming to the Capitol looking for more money.

I think that, y'know, it ties into what, like you said, the budget shortfall in the City of Chicago, Chicago would undoubtedly get more money if there was more money put into that formula.

They're not first in line anymore.

There's a tier system and they fall into sort of the second tier.

So to get them the kind of money they're looking for would mean a lot more money being put into the formula that the state just doesn't have right now.

And in terms of, y'know, generating new revenue to fill that hole or to possibly increase funding for things like education, y'know, the Governor has already kind of come out and said they're not really looking at any sort of major tax increases.

Y'know, he's got the possibility of a race for a third term to look at next year.

So, y'know, maybe if they were gonna do that, this would be the year to do it, give voters a little time to forget maybe.

But really, y'know, I think if they were gonna do anything like that, the time to look at that would've been in the lame duck session that just passed in January, and they didn't tackle anything of that nature then.

So yeah, y'know, like John waiting to see what ideas come out of the Capital to try to close up these holes in the budget, and I think education is gonna be one of the hot topics 'cause there will be folks there pushing for them to do more than that $350 million increase that they've done each year, with the exception of the pandemic year, since the formula was put in place.

- John, we've touched on the budget.

Are there any other challenges or opportunities that you foresee or are looking for in this legislative session?

- Well, let me set the context here, and that is the Democrats are totally in control.

For example, in the House, the Speaker has 78 seats and he only needs 60 and that gives him 18 as a surplus, which is what it was before the election.

So that stayed the same, and they control the Senate as well.

The question, I think, becomes immediately how to deal with that though and how to control the various factions within the Democratic Party, particularly in the House.

And the question there starts with the rule that the Speaker has had, which is that he wants 60 votes in evidence before he takes something to the House and lets them vote on it.

And I think this recent flare up over kind of an innocuous argument in a sense, the question of hemp, or intoxicating hemp as it's sometimes called, versus the sale and regulation of cannabis.

Turns out that hemp is not heavily regulated in terms of its retail sales.

And we all know that the production and the selling of cannabis, both medical and recreational, has become really quite a big industry and quite heavily regulated.

On the other hand, all kinds of smoke shops and filling stations and hookah bars and all kinds of things to find these hemp products and they are loosely regulated, but they are also off and on by the more economically disadvantaged side of this equation.

And so that all came to bear with the Governor wanting a particular bill that he and his staff suggested had 60 votes.

And it turned out, when the Speaker started the debate on that, it was controversial, it became conflict ridden.

I wasn't there, but I understand the debate on the floor got pretty pointed and somewhat heated in terms of some of the members of General Assembly and attacks on the Governor's staff.

And so that shows you how difficult these things can be to put together the coalition necessary to get to 60 votes, and that's going to be the challenge on both sides, the House and the Senate.

And ultimately there are all kinds of things that can cause those kinds of internal Democratic Party fights.

- It occurs to me too, if I can jump in really quickly, that in this new environment you might see more factions, more, y'know, I guess more space between the divisions in the party, where maybe some more of the moderate Democratic members are sort of hewing toward the center or the right a little bit in this new national political environment we're in and, y'know, more further left progressive members are leaning more that way to sort of serve in opposition to the new Trump administration in Washington.

So that has a potential to sort of deepen some of these... - I want to shift the conversation just a bit, back to state ethics.

And Dan, you talked about the reporting that you and your colleagues have done at the Tribune.

And just last week, it was Dr. Ngozi Ezike, the former Head of the State Department of Public Health.

I believe it was the Executive Ethics Commission levied a $150,000 fine against her for an ethics violation, which she has accepted, related to her stepping down as head of the state agency and moving into a job, I believe, with Sinai Health Systems.

Dan, what was the situation there?

Why was this a violation of the ethics law?

- Sure, so this was a violation of the revolving door clause of the, I believe it's called the State Employee Ethics Act.

And what this says, essentially, there are different tiers of it, but the one that applied to her, because she was a high level agency head, was because her agency had contracts over $25,000 with the Sinai Health System in the year before she left her job with the state and also was involved in a variety of licensing and regulatory decisions involving those hospitals, which are on the southwest and west side of Chicago, it's a safety net hospital system, that she was prohibited from going to work for them for a year after leaving state employment.

The idea there is to sort of deal with some of the issues that we saw a lot back in particularly the era of Governor Rod Blagojevich, for example, where people were, y'know, using contracts and things to enrich themselves.

And the idea is basically to operate good, clean government.

You don't want people who are negotiating contracts with vendors overseeing contracts with vendors and working out sweetheart deals where that they can leave the state and the next day go get a big pay bump to work for some other outside entity.

Dr. Ezike's defense, like you said, she admitted the violations, she settled the complaint that was brought by the Attorney General's office, but her defense was that, y'know, she consulted the agency's ethics officer, she consulted, y'know, people throughout government about whether she could do this, she hired a private attorney to consult with who just so happened to be a State House lobbyist and former Chief Counsel to Mike Madigan, Heather Wier Vaught, who actually, I think, a couple days after that story broke, took the witness standup at Madigan's trial and everybody sort of gave her the, y'know, no pun intended, but the clean bill of health to go take the job.

But, y'know, reading the letter of the law, it's pretty clear that it did apply in situations like this.

Like you said, y'know, it's part of a broader system of ethics in the state that sometimes has some weaknesses and some lack of teeth, but this was one situation where actually they did levy a pretty substantial fine.

- Dan, what have you found in your investigating and reporting on the State Ethics Law?

Is it functional?

Does it need to be fixed?

How would you assess the Ethics Act?

- So my colleague Gregory Pratt and I did a story back in December where we looked at this, both at the city and the state level.

And, y'know, part of the problem is, I would say the biggest problems are in the legislature with the Legislative Inspector General, which is, at the state government level, among the weakest of all the Inspectors General.

But broadly, y'know, there's limits on the kinds of things they're allowed to investigate, both on the legislative side and the executive side.

They have no real power to impose penalties.

Those are left up to various commissions, which do impose some penalties.

Y'know, the fine that Ezike got is one example, but that entity has existed for 20 years and, y'know, her fine was, I think, the third largest that it's ever levied and there were only, like, a half dozen or so that count for like 90% of the money that they've levied in fines over those 20 years.

So they don't have a lot of bites, the watchdogs, I guess I would say.

And, y'know, it's a system that's designed by elected officials, in some ways, to protect themselves, particularly when it comes to the legislature, just going back to that, where there's a panel of lawmakers that sits and decides whether, for example, reports on wrongdoing by their fellow lawmakers ever see the light of day.

And it takes a majority vote of this eight member-commission, which is divided four-four along party lines, so it deadlocks sometimes when those things come up and it's just not a system that really promotes transparency.

It's not easy to know when there are findings that public officials have have committed wrongdoing.

- So gentlemen, we've got about three, a little over three minutes left.

And John, I wanted to ask you specifically, Donald Trump is back in now as President.

His inauguration was on Monday.

He has already issued a barrage of executive orders and pardons and has hit the ground running.

You've observed presidents and presidential administrations for a number of years.

What is your initial reaction to the first couple of days of Trump's second term?

- Well, Jeff, not only the first couple of days, but the first Trump administration, the first Trump campaign, the second Trump campaign all leads me to conclusion that Illinois can't be very optimistic about the impact of the Trump administration on State of Illinois, and particularly Illinois government.

From his first campaign on, Donald Trump has made evident his disdain for Chicago, his disdain for the cities in general, and then Governor Pritzker became one of his major critics and you don't criticize Donald Trump and get away with it.

So he's had nothing but derogatory things to say about the Governor, the City of Chicago, the Mayor of Chicago, and so forth.

And the City of Chicago, we all know, has been one of his favorite targets because it combines not only his crime in the streets rampant in places like Chicago, he claims, but also his immigration policies are involved with his tax.

And the notable thing here is before there was a second Trump administration, he only had his Chief of Staff when he appointed Tom Homan to be his czar, and it doesn't require Senate confirmation.

And I wasn't there, but Homan came to Chicago in December, he called Chicago "ground zero for the new immigration roundup and deporting of illegals" and he's come back to that again and again.

And he's targeted last week cities specifically of Chicago, New York, and Denver for ICE attention, and, of course, he was head of ICE before he got his current job.

So I don't think one should think that's going to go down very easily.

It's gonna be conflict ridden nationally, and probably conflict ridden in the city, and what to do about that from both state and officials.

Department of Justice has a new edict out today that local jurisdictions can't interfere with any of that, so that all looks really not very promising.

On a more optimistic closing note, I think the economy is so strong that it's gonna be hard to foul it up over the next two years.

Particularly, there are all kinds of things that Joe Biden and his administration put into place that the economy is thriving.

He's made investments in the future like the chips production, the infrastructure production, which is really just now getting going.

The emphasis on electric vehicles and alternative energy, solar and wind, all of that's been a part of what Illinois's been doing and fits quite nicely with what the national funding is there for.

So if the economy stays healthy, then the state and even the city will stay healthy and will profit from it.

But there's still all kinds of places where there's going to be hostility from Trump and the administration toward the cities, which is ironic, because Trump was a product of Manhattan and now he's moved to Mar-A-Lago, which I'm pretty sure isn't a big, rich, urban area.

But nevertheless, that's going to be what Illinois officials have to deal with.

- John, I'm gonna let you have the last word.

That's where we'll leave it for this week's edition of "Capital View".

John Jackson, Dan Petrella, thank you both for joining us this week.

For Fred Martino, I'm Jeff Williams.

Have a good week.

(dramatic orchestral music)