Revealing a Political Stranglehold

When the Massachusetts House of Representatives voted two weeks ago to lift the eight-year term limit on the speaker's term, there were many justified cries of outrage. Speaker Thomas M. Finneran, who would have been forced to surrender his immensely powerful position in 2004 under the old rules, ostensibly excused himself from the vote and claims he did not pressure lawmakers on the issue. But he was undoubtedly watching each member's vote with keen interest. Indeed, shortly after the vote, loyal lieutenants were given choice committee assignments and leadership roles, while opponents were exiled to backwater posts.

But ultimately, Finneran is not the only one to blame for this undemocratic situation. Many of the representatives who voted to keep Finneran in power are not necessarily close ideological or political allies of the speaker. Instead, they find it politically convenient to allow Finneran to take the heat for them on contentious issues. They allow him to keep his iron grip on power because he is unafraid to help them avoid competition.

The Clean Elections law passed by Massachusetts voters as a ballot initiative in 1998 is a perfect example. Lawmakers despise the law, which prevents them from raising huge contributions in the months before an election if they wish to qualify for public financing. Finneran and Senate President Thomas F. Birmingham '72 tried to gut the law in last year's budget, only to be thwarted by a gubernatorial veto.

But few lawmakers want to actively fight against a clean elections initiative that was passed with 67 percent of the vote. The law is aimed at incumbents by limiting their access to special interest money in the months before an election; the representatives would love to see it go, but would rather not have to kill it themselves. As always, when there is an unpleasant job to be done, no one wants to take the blame.

That's where Finneran comes in. From a safe district, and with a tight hold on power, he is not afraid to emasculate the Clean Elections law. Just last week Finneran and his team proposed changing the law to make it apply only to statewide races--not to legislative ones. If Finneran succeeds in amending the law this time, lawmakers will be ecstatic; it is the people who will suffer.

And so the rank-and-file representatives are more than happy to let him take the heat for tinkering with the law. Because Finneran is such an autocratic leader, he is blamed when the House tries to change election law. And the members who put him in that position and gave him that power get off scot-free--they suffer far less political damage than they would if there was no easy target to blame.

It is a perfect marriage of political convenience. The representatives, knowing Finneran will retaliate against them if they vote against him, take the path of least resistance (and of political survival)--they let him stay in power. And in return, Finneran makes it easier for them to avoid competition by destroying a popular and necessary campaign finance reform law that would encourage people to challenge incumbents. The only losers are the people of Massachusetts--who suffer not only if the Clean Elections law is repealed, but also because the representatives' abdication of responsibility diminishes democracy and accountability in the legislature.

Though Finneran has assaulted any semblance of true democracy in the House in a wide variety of ways, from micromanaging committee actions to single-handedly negotiating the details of the budget with Birmingham last year, he does not alone bear the blame for this shameless power grab. The representatives who find it convenient to have him as a scapegoat also deserve to be censured for destroying any semblance of democracy in order to protect themselves.