Massachusetts House of Representatives scandal

There can be little doubt that the Massachusetts House of Representatives is one of the great ethical cesspools of American politics.

Sure, the legislature in neighboring Rhode Island takes a back seat to nobody for chicanery and two-faced double-dealing; and states like Louisiana, Illinois, and New Jersey seem to revel in the base moral tone and loose standards of personal probity maintained across generations of elected officials.

But the Massachusetts House stands in a class of its own. Over the past 20 years, three successive Speakers have been driven from office by federal investigators: Charlie Flaherty of Cambridge and Tom Finneran of Dorchester, who pled guilty to charges of tax evasion and perjury, respectively; and Sal DiMasi of the North End, found guilty by a jury this month of corruption, fraud, and conspiracy.

The only ones still insisting that DiMasi represents an isolated — rather than a systemic — problem are the House members themselves. Of course. They also supported DiMasi's refusal to turn over his records to the State Ethics Commission; re-elected him Speaker; replaced him with his hand-picked successor; and rose to a standing ovation when he and Finneran visited the chamber.

Rather than waiting for these status-quo sycophants to change, we can — and should — simply abolish the House.

Eliminating the House by constitutional amendment, and adopting a unicameral (one-chamber) legislature, would put the remaining lawmakers under far greater scrutiny. It would also discourage the centralized, top-down autocracy that sheer numbers in the 160-member House chamber almost inevitably require.

Gone would be the closed-door conference committees, where bills get rewritten and deals get done without public debate or explanation. This would eliminate the absurd end-of-session ritual of backlogged legislation rammed through in late-night sessions, epitomized last July when current Speaker Robert DeLeo held a stack of Senate bills hostage to extract a compromise on race-track slots from Senate President Therese Murray.

To be sure, it isn't inevitable that the House must operate as it now does, with the Speaker directing and micro-managing virtually every move. Committee chairs and individual members were given far greater latitude to act independently 25 years ago, under George Keverian, who perhaps not coincidentally was the last Speaker to avoid becoming a felon.

And it's very hard to predict how well a unicameral legislature would work in practice, since only one state uses it: Nebraska, since 1934.

But really, how much worse can it be? Let's torch the House — I have a feeling we won't miss it.

1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |   next >
Related: Capuano for Senate, Missing in action, Ready to rumble, More more >
  Topics: Talking Politics , Massachusetts, Massachusetts House of Representatives, Politics,  More more >
| More

Most Popular
Share this entry with Delicious
  •   MRS. WARREN GOES TO WASHINGTON  |  March 21, 2013
    Elizabeth Warren was the only senator on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, aside from the chair and ranking minority, to show up at last Thursday's hearing on indexing the minimum wage to inflation.
  •   MARCH MADNESS  |  March 12, 2013
    It's no surprise that the coming weekend's Saint Patrick's Day celebrations have become politically charged, given the extraordinary convergence of electoral events visiting South Boston.
  •   LABOR'S LOVE LOST  |  March 08, 2013
    Steve Lynch is winning back much of the union support that left him in 2009.
  •   AFTER MARKEY, GET SET, GO  |  February 20, 2013
    It's a matter of political decorum: when an officeholder is running for higher office, you wait until the election has been won before publicly coveting the resulting vacancy.
    It wasn't just that Scott Brown announced he was not running in the special US Senate election — it was that it quickly became evident that he was not handing the job off to another Republican.

 See all articles by: DAVID S. BERNSTEIN