E-Mail This Article to a Friend Tarnished, not finished (continued) BY DAN KENNEDY

THERE IS, of course, another way of looking at Finneran’s Speakership. Under his rule, the House has run more efficiently — certainly when compared with the chaos of the Keverian era, a time when the very reforms that brought Keverian to power turned the institution into a morass of indecision.

Finneran’s social conservatism makes progressives chafe, but, though he does not support abortion rights, his House has not taken any significant measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose. His hostility toward gay and lesbian rights may come into play if, as expected, the state’s Supreme Judicial Court creates a right of same-sex marriage or civil unions when it renders a decision in the Goodridge case.

State Representative Paul Demakis, a Back Bay Democrat who’s aligned with the progressive bloc, argues that Finneran’s opposition to measures that would help lesbians and gay men is the single-most-important reason the state has not passed a domestic-partnership law, a proposal that he says has "broad support" among House members. "I think that area is the one where I am probably in strongest disagreement with him," says Demakis.

On the other hand, Finneran’s opposition to the death penalty is arguably responsible for capital punishment’s failure to make a comeback in Massachusetts. Several years ago, following the horrific kidnap-murder of a Cambridge boy named Jeffrey Curley, the House came within one vote of bringing back the death penalty. The narrow defeat was largely credited to — and blamed on — Finneran’s legislative maneuvering. Byron Rushing, who opposes capital punishment, concedes that sometimes substance trumps process, commenting, "None of the anti-death-penalty people complain about Finneran and how he handles that."

Finneran also deserves kudos for shepherding through last year’s $1.2 billion tax increase, taking heat that might otherwise have been directed at his members. Last November, the liberal political-advocacy group Citizens for Participation in Political Action placed a nonbinding referendum question on the ballot in 18 House districts directing legislators to vote against Finneran for Speaker. The question passed in all 18 districts. Perhaps some of those "no" votes were cast on the basis of Finneran’s public image as a power-monger; but surely some were an anti-tax statement as well. By letting himself become a lightning rod for voter anger, Finneran protected his members. That just 17 Democrats voted against his re-election as Speaker may have represented genuine affection and gratitude as much as it did fear of retribution.

Then, too, Finneran’s woes these days — what few there are — may be based on his longevity as much as they are on his leadership style. By January 2005, he will have served four full terms as Speaker, and would have had to step down if he hadn’t pushed for the repeal of term limits. During last fall’s gubernatorial campaign, there was talk that the Democratic candidate, Shannon O’Brien, would find Finneran a soft place to land if she were elected. That didn’t happen, obviously, and so it appears likely that Finneran will try to remain Speaker for some time to come. Recently he even had to shoot down rumors that he was getting ready to leave. People used to talk about his running for mayor someday, but Tom Menino seems unlikely to go anywhere for a long time. Finneran’s continued presence in the House, in itself, creates tensions, as ambitious members seeking to move up find themselves stymied not just by Finneran’s continued presence, but by that of his entire leadership team.

Nick Paleologos, the former state representative who admires Finneran, nevertheless warns that there are hazards in trying to stay too long. Paleologos speaks from experience: he participated in the coup against Tom McGee that resulted in George Keverian’s ascension in 1985. Says Paleologos of the restlessness over Finneran: "This has much less to do with the tyranny of one than it does with longevity simply taking its toll. People get restless. You can only have fun on the back bench for so long."

So where does the opposition to Finneran go from here? The opposition to his pay-raise bill, and to some other matters such as an insistence among House members that legal-aid funding be restored, demonstrates that Finneran can be defeated as long as Mitt Romney weighs in.

"I think the current state of opposition to Finneran is stronger than it’s ever been before," says Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts, which has opposed Finneran on issues such as Clean Elections and the pay raise.

Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation, says Finneran’s record on issues such as freezing the voter-approved cut in the state income tax belies his reputation as a fiscal conservative. Of his defeat on the pay-raise bill, she remarks, "The members sensed that they had some power themselves, and maybe they liked it. I think now that he’s lost once, there’s certainly no way to hide the perception that maybe he could lose again. I think the earth has tilted a little bit on its axis."

But there are some problems with this. Getting the 54 votes necessary to sustain a gubernatorial veto is a lot easier than rounding up the 81 votes needed actually to defeat Finneran on a floor vote. And even the votes to override aren’t going to be there all that often: the staunchest anti-Finneran members are left-leaning Democrats and conservative Republicans, and obviously their interests don’t converge all that often. On process and reform issues, there may be some common ground. But on substance? Not likely.

"If you get down to philosophical issues, the Republican caucus doesn’t tend to share a lot of views with Byron and his group," says House Republican leader Brad Jones. "If we can’t bridge the gap on philosophy, the only time we can work together is on procedural stuff."

THIS FALL, Finneran will face another challenge. After the last round of redistricting, the Speaker and the House were hit with a federal lawsuit filed by several plaintiffs, including the voting-rights organization MassVOTE, the Boston-based Black Political Task Force, and the Latino advocacy group ¿Oiste?

According to George Pillsbury, MassVOTE’s policy director, 12 of Boston’s 17 House districts are majority-white under the Finneran-backed redistricting plan, even though the city is now only 50 percent white. Two, in Dorchester, are nearly all African-American — what Pillsbury calls "apartheid-style" districts. Finneran’s own district, long centered in the heavily minority community of Mattapan, has been stretched in the direction of mostly white Milton. "He saw the numbers on the wall. The black vote has gone up in the last two years," Pillsbury says.

In Chelsea, Pillsbury adds, Finneran passed up an opportunity to create a Chelsea–East Boston seat that would likely elect a Latino, instead keeping Chelsea united with mostly white Charlestown — thus protecting State Representative Eugene O’Flaherty, a Charlestown Democrat.

The lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial this November in US District Court.

Of course, it could turn out that the suit goes nowhere — just like the Byron Rushing challenge, just like the brief flurry of excitement generated over his retreat on the pay raises, just like the talk that this time he’d gone too far over Clean Elections, over term limits; hell, over the time he said he wasn’t going to give a tax break to "some fat-ass millionaire" looking to build a football stadium. His insistence that he wasn’t referring to Patriots owner Bob Kraft was undermined by the inconvenient truth that Kraft at that moment was getting ready to up and move to Hartford, Connecticut.

But you know what? Kraft stayed. Finneran’s stand saved the taxpayers a bundle. It worked out. It always does.

Until, one day, it doesn’t. Finneran’s reputation for total control has been tarnished this year, but he’s a long way from being finished. The questions now are simple ones. Can he change his ways? Will he eventually be pushed aside? Or will he do what he does best: crush the opposition, reward his friends, and continue his reign?

The thing is, though, that nothing lasts forever. Invincibility has a shelf life. Speakers such as John Thompson in the ’60s and Tom McGee in the ’80s were toppled. The most tyrannical Senate president of them all, Bill Bulger, got out while the getting was good — only to have his family’s demons catch up with him years later.

So, too, will the time come for Tom Finneran to leave. Surely he understands that as well as anyone. But when? And on his terms — or on those of an opposition that has finally grown too large and too angry for him to contain?