Unfortunately, it is human nature for people to think of their own self-interest first. It is a rare individual indeed who will eschew his or her own concerns in favor of the greater good. The blatantly self-promoting actions of Massachusetts legislative leaders is another example of how such altruism is in critically short supply.

Last year, Massachusetts voters initiated and passed a "Clean Elections" law intended to reduce the influence of large campaign donors. Passed by 67 percent of the voters, the law would reward candidates who abided by voluntary spending limits with public financing. The public funds would encourage citizens to challenge more well-connected incumbents.

However, in the recently finalized state budget, House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran (D-Mattapan) and Senate President Thomas F. Birmingham '72 (D-Boston) inserted language that would have gutted this proposal, according to proponents of the law. The changes would have allowed incumbents to raise huge amounts of money while in office and still be able to qualify for public funds in the last six months before an election.

Pressed to explain their changes to the Clean Elections law, Birmingham and Finneran cited the need for some representatives to maintain district offices. They claimed that representatives would not have enough money to run for these offices if they agreed to limit fundraising under the new law. However, such a minor problem could surely have been dealt with in a more effective way. If this had indeed been the true issue at stake, the law could have been tweaked to allow an exception for constituent services. However, there has been widespread speculation that more powerful interests were at work.

It is well known that both Birmingham and Finneran harbor gubernatorial ambitions. One of their possible competitors for the Democratic nomination in 2002 is wealthy entrepreneur Steve Grossman, former chair of the Democratic National Committee. Grossman could clearly outspend either Birmingham or Finneran in a campaign, but if one of the candidates could gain public funding in addition to private contributions, it would improve his chances. The Boston Globe reported that Birmingham was pressuring the administration to quietly accept the changes, no doubt looking forward two years to the upcoming race.

Beyond any possible connection to the gubernatorial campaign, the proposed change in the law tremendously benefits all incumbents. These changes corrupt both the letter and the spirit of the original petition. The Clean Elections law was submitted in an attempt to curb the enormous power of incumbent representatives. Incumbents attract massive donations from many lobbyists and businesses, making the job of a challenger that much tougher. This legislation was intended to even the playing field. After Birmingham and Finneran got their hands on it, however, the system seemed to become more biased than ever.

Luckily for the citizens of Massachusetts, Governor A. Paul Cellucci vetoed these changes and preserved the original bill. Before lauding him for his integrity, though, it ought to be noted that many other considerations appeared to be at stake, including an ongoing feud between the governor and Birmingham. His action appeared to be more a vengeful stab at Birmingham than a rational policy choice.

Although these events provide a striking case study of legislative manipulation, the most pressing problem is neither the senate president nor the campaign system in Massachusetts. Rather, the most disturbing aspect of the entire debacle is the willingness of politicians to subordinate the will of the people and the common good to their own personal ambitions and preferences.