By the time AT&T Illinois lobbyists sat down with recently retired state Rep. Edward “Eddie” Acevedo to offer him a $2,500-a-month consulting job in 2017, a week had nearly gone by since a utility executive signed a deal to steer Acevedo the cash.
But Acevedo was apparently not impressed. One lobbyist tried in court Friday to politely describe Acevedo’s reaction — before a prosecutor assured him he could swear.
“F— AT&T,” Acevedo allegedly said. “They can kiss my a–.”
That was according to Tom Cullen, a veteran lobbyist and former staffer for now indicted longtime Illinois House Speaker Michael J. Madigan. Cullen took the witness stand Friday as prosecutors neared the end of their separate case against AT&T Illinois President Paul La Schiazza.
La Schiazza is accused of bribing Madigan by funneling $22,500 to Acevedo through Cullen’s firm in 2017, just as AT&T was trying to score a big win with legislation in Springfield. On Friday, jurors heard Cullen corroborate much of the testimony delivered earlier in the week.
But they also heard that Acevedo, a Democrat who served two decades in the Legislature, thought he “deserved more money.” Meanwhile, not every answer they heard lined up with the prosecutors’ theory of the case.
U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman adjourned the trial Friday before La Schiazza’s defense attorneys had a chance to cross-examine Cullen. Earlier, attorneys told the judge the case could be in the hands of the jury by next week’s end.
Like others before him, Cullen told jurors that Madigan had “complete control” of the Illinois House and the Democratic Party of Illinois. He also explained that Madigan was “very, very close” to longtime lobbyist Michael McClain.
Prosecutors say it was McClain who sought the contract for Acevedo from AT&T, prompting staff there to believe the request really came from Madigan, a Southwest Side Democrat.
Former AT&T lobbyist Stephen Selcke testified Thursday that the utility paid Acevedo through Cullen’s firm partly so Republican lawmakers wouldn’t find out it had hired Acevedo. However, Cullen was apparently led to believe AT&T wanted to hide it from state Rep. Theresa Mah.
Mah, also a Democrat, had defeated Acevedo’s son, Alex Acevedo, in a contentious primary election in 2016. Both Acevedos wound up going to prison for cheating on their taxes.
Cullen said he agreed to let AT&T Illinois funnel the payments through his firm to be “amenable” to the utility. But he wouldn’t have paid Acevedo on his own.
“I didn’t think … that he was a serious lobbyist,” Cullen testified. “He was brand new. He potentially liked to go out partying and drink a lot.”
La Schiazza approved a $22,500 bump in Cullen’s AT&T Illinois contract on April 20, 2017 — money that was meant for Acevedo over nine months. But it wasn’t until April 26, 2017, that Cullen and Selcke wound up in a meeting making the offer to Acevedo at the Illinois Capitol.
Selcke, whose testimony continued Friday before Cullen took the stand, said Acevedo’s reaction to the offer was “borderline unprofessional.” Acevedo later suggested he should be paid $3,000 a month.
The utility asked Acevedo to produce a report about the Latino caucuses in the Illinois House of Representatives and Chicago City Council, Selcke explained. Prosecutors say Acevedo never produced the report.
As AT&T Illinois’ lobbying team considered Acevedo’s counter-offer — and the implications if Acevedo wasn’t hired — one member wrote in an email that “ATT has been responsive to the request we received, and Eddie will have chosen to decline.”
When asked Friday for his interpretation of the comment, Selcke testified, “Well, it’s that we had made a legitimate offer to Eddie for work, and if he chose to decline, he chose to decline.”
At one point, Assistant U.S. Attorney Timothy Chapman asked Selcke whether Acevedo’s hiring was “in any way related to” a crucial bill AT&T Illinois hoped to pass in Springfield.
“In my mind, no, it wasn’t,” Selcke said.
When pressed by Chapman, Selcke acknowledged that Republicans had threatened to vote against AT&T’s legislative agenda if it hired Acevedo. He also said the utility didn’t want to “rock the boat” with Madigan.
Defense attorney Jack Dodds later asked Selcke if he thought giving a contract to Acevedo would convince Madigan to move AT&T’s legislation forward.
“No, I did not feel that way or think that way,” Selcke said.
Dodds also asked about emails in which AT&T Illinois staff discussed making sure “that ATT gets credit for fulfilling this request.” Dodds asked if “credit” was a “code word for a bribe.” Selcke denied it.
“Because that’s not what you thought you were doing, was it?” Dodds asked.
“It was not,” Selcke said.