Concentration of power held by speaker blamed as a key factor

Legislators past and present attributed the trend to the concentration in recent years of increased power in the hands of the leader of a lawmaking body of 160 members, 90 percent of whom are Democrats.

With his indictment yesterday by a federal grand jury on fraud and conspiracy charges, Salvatore F. DiMasi, who resigned as speaker in January, follows fellow Democrats Thomas M. Finneran, and Charles F. Flaherty, both of whom pleaded guilty to federal criminal charges. Prior to that, it had been 32 years between indictments of a Massachusetts speaker of the house.

"Too much power has accumulated over the years in that position," said Frank Hynes, a Marshfield Democrat, who gave up his seat in the House last year after 26 years in office. "Even in little things, little votes that have no relationship to either the Democratic Party's values or ideals, the speaker demands 100 percent lockstep followership."

Speakers have vast power and discretion to control not only the agenda and flow of legislation in the House but also the creature comforts and perquisites of the membership. "The speaker controls, basically, everything - where you sit, where you stand, how many aides you get, whether you get a good parking space," Hynes said.

With an acquiescent membership, there is less open debate, and more decisions made behind closed doors, Hynes said.

Bradley H. Jones Jr. of North Reading, leader of the House Republicans, who are outnumbered 9-to-1, said the lopsided numbers create "an arrogance of power."

"It's power that is made only that much more dramatic and that much more potentially corrupting because of one-party government," Jones said. "A speaker only has as much power as the membership is willing to give, and the Democratic Party is willing to give tremendous power to the speaker."

Bradley said the GOP must do a better job of recruiting candidates but ultimately "it's going to take the public to do something about it."

DiMasi resigned the speakership and his House seat in late January in the face of a widening investigation by the US attorney's office into reports by the Globe that his friends and associates had received large unreported sums of money from businesses seeking favorable action on contracts or legislation.

His predecessor, Finneran, also stepped down before he was indicted in June 2005 for obstruction of justice and perjury in connection with a civil suit filed in federal court challenging a legislative redistricting plan. In a plea deal with federal prosecutors in January, 2007, he admitted he obstructed justice, received 18 months of unsupervised probation, and a $25,000 fine, and the perjury counts were dismissed. Finneran now hosts a talk radio program.

The Flaherty speakership collapsed in 1996 after he agreed to plead guilty to federal income tax evasion and pay a combined $50,000 in state and federal fines following a 2 1/2-year investigation into his relationship with lobbyists, also precipitated by a series of stories in the Globe. Flaherty is now a registered lobbyist on Beacon Hill.

Prior to Flaherty, the last speaker to face criminal charges was John F. (Iron Duke) Thompson, charged in 1964 with bribery in the wide-ranging crime commission investigation. He died before the case was resolved.

The other legislative chamber has also seen its fair share of legal turmoil recently, with the arrest of Boston Senator Dianne Wilkerson last fall after FBI photos showed her allegedly accepting cash bribes. Wilkerson later resigned.

In November, Senator James Marzilli resigned his Somerville seat, four months after he was indicted on charges of accosting four women in downtown Lowell.

Other states such as Louisiana, Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and New York have rich histories of political corruption, but recently, Illinois has attracted much attention with the impeachment in January of Democratic governor Rod Blagojevich who is facing bribery and other corruption charges.