In ComEd-Madigan case, dishonorable mention breaks Chicago politics’ golden rule

“That which is understood need not be mentioned.”

If you were writing the Unofficial Rules of Chicago Politics, that simple sentence would certainly deserve a place in the top five — yet I can’t remember ever hearing it stated so succinctly.

There’s no telling how many times I’ve tried to express the same concept without attaining that level of poetic insight.

Yet there it was quoted in the filing of federal charges against Commonwealth Edison a week ago in connection with ComEd’s admitted scheme to bestow political favors on Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan in an effort to obtain favorable treatment from the Legislature.

I missed it on the first reading and am betting that, if I did, so did most of you.

The remark came during a conversation March 6, 2019, between “Individual A,” identified by the Sun-Times as former state Rep. Mike McClain of Quincy, and “Lobbyist 1,” known to be John Hooker, previously ComEd’s executive vice president of legislative and external affairs and, at the time, a hired lobbyist for the utility.

McClain was ComEd’s main lobbyist for many years and a consultant with a reputation for having a particularly close working relationship with Madigan.

McClain and Hooker were discussing renewal of the utility’s contract with another lobbying company, operated by “Consultant 1,” former City Club president Jay Doherty, who allegedly gave subcontracts to some of the speaker’s associates for which they did little or no work.

I think we can deduce from the quotes that follow that their chat was caught on a wiretap.

“With the [Doherty] stuff, you got a little leg up,” Hooker is quoted as telling McClain, to his agreement.

Hooker later said: “I mean it’s, uh, unmentioned, but you know, THAT WHICH IS UNDERSTOOD NEED NOT BE MENTIONED.” (Emphasis added.)

“Right. Exactly. Exactly,” McClain responded.

Exactly.

It’s an underpinning of our politics.

The whole system of campaign finance in our country relies on that very premise.

Those who solicit and those who make campaign contributions don’t have to explicitly engage in bribery every time they do business.

It’s understood that making a contribution to a politician comes with certain advantages: at the very least some measure of access for the donor, an opportunity to be heard should the need arise.

Give enough, of course, and the expectations become greater, with the contributor expecting favorable treatment when necessary — whether it’s getting the inside track on a contract, a good job, an appointment to an influential board or support on a matter of public policy. Everybody wants something.

But, as stated, this is supposed to be understood, not to be expressed openly.

Because that could be interpreted as a quid pro quo.

This for that.

Which every mope in politics understands is against the law and opens you to criminal prosecution — if caught.

The same principle has always been thought to similarly govern the lobbying world.

Long before McClain allegedly came along with his “Magic Lobbyist List” of Madigan’s favored lobbyists, special interests looking for government’s inside track knew it made sense to hire lobbyists with close relationships to the officials who they needed to influence.

These special interests didn’t need someone to give them an approved list of lobbyists from which they could choose. Word of mouth was enough.

It was understood. No need to say it aloud.

For years, it was assumed Madigan and former Chicago City Council Finance Chairman Edward Burke were among the foremost practitioners of “that which is understood need not be mentioned.”

Madigan and Burke didn’t need to aggressively shake down people to hire their law firms to handle property tax appeals, we believed. It was just understood that hiring them came with a certain goodwill. Both men got rich. They never got in trouble.

But now we’ve seen in the criminal case against Burke that prosecutors say he wasn’t always quite so subtle about soliciting new clients, and now we are left to ponder Madigan’s role in McClain’s dealings with ComEd, using the speaker’s name to bully favors.

Maybe it’s time to reassess. Is the rule flawed, or is the flaw in human nature?

What happens when that which was thought to be understood is not really understood? Or if the person who wants to be understood is a control freak?

Then, someone might be tempted to say something. Offer a reminder. Clarify what they want. And, in so doing, break the law.

Now, I understand.

Don’t mention it.