PAST DRUG USE FAIR GAME FOR AG CANDIDATES

HARRISBURG - Should candidates for public office be asked about past drug
use? Even recreational drug use that may have occurred 20 to 30 years ago?
Is this in the public interest? Or is it "gotcha" journalism - an invasion
of privacy - that deters many stellar candidates from public service?

The issue surfaced recently in a debate between the Democratic candidates
for state attorney general, Jim Eisenhower and John Morganelli, on
statewide television.

The winner of the Democratic primary April 4 will take on Republican
incumbent Mike Fisher, of Allegheny County.

Eisenhower is a former federal prosecutor. He's from Philadelphia. He
recently served in the Clinton White House. He was White House director for
International Crime, Narcotics and War Crimes. He worked for the National
Security Council, an extremely sensitive position to say the least.

Morganelli is the Northampton County district attorney. He is president of
the District Attorney's Association. He's billing himself as a "seasoned
state prosecutor" running against a lawyer in private practice.

Eisenhower touts his experience as a federal prosecutor going after "drug
czars." He is selling himself as a career prosecutor, not a politician.

They are both articulate, aggressive candidates. The race is viewed by some
as a toss-up. Eisenhower has the state Democratic Committee endorsement.
Morganelli is widely backed by law enforcement groups, including the
Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police. Eisenhower's name, a famous name in
state and national politics, is probably more of an advantage in a race
with low name recognition than any other factor.

Either candidate would have his hands full taking on the incumbent, Fisher,
who has run statewide four times, including unsuccessful bids for governor
and lieutenant governor.

During their recent debate on the Pennsylvania Cable Network, Eisenhower
and Morganelli were asked whether either candidate had ever used
recreational drugs, whether family or friends used recreational drugs, and
how those events may have shaped their experience.

Eisenhower declined to say. He said it's time to get out of the game of
playing "gotcha." People are fed up with questions about candidates'
personal lives, Eisenhower said.

He said living in Philadelphia he has seen "up close and personal" the
devastation caused by drug use.

As for his own situation, Eisenhower said, "I've not violated any laws."

Morganelli immediately pounced on Eisenhower for a response that came off,
he claimed, "sort of like a Clinton answer." He was referring, of course,
to Bill Clinton's "I didn't inhale" line or his claim of not having broken
the laws of this country (while a student at Oxford).

Eisenhower also attended Oxford, where he received a master's degree in
political and legal theory.

It is curious why Eisenhower would not simply deny past drug use if he had
not violated any laws. The two claims seem inseparable. He's probably right
that a lot of Pennsylvanians may not care.

But it was the way he answered, more so than whether he had or had not used
drugs in the past, that was troubling.

But then again Eisenhower worked for a president willing to split hairs on
whether "is" really means "is." Eisenhower served in a White House
fellowship in 1995 and '96.

It is also curious that a Democratic candidate, Morganelli, would raise the
specter of Bill Clinton, a Democratic president, in criticizing
Eisenhower's answer. That's how far it's all come. Clinton's lack of
veracity as a candidate, and as president, now colors local and state races
- - even Democratic contests.

As for himself, Morganelli said, "No, I've never used recreational drugs.
I'm proud to be able to state that."

What about Fisher? Through his spokesman Sean Connolly, the attorney
general said he had been asked that question in the 1996 campaign. "The
answer at that time was no. It's still no," said Connolly. Fisher did not
elaborate beyond that statement, Connolly said.

What's going on here? Is this question out of line? Should we care if
public officials did drugs two decades ago while in college? Is it unfair
to ask? Does it violate their privacy?

And which candidates should be asked such a question? All of them?

No, says Mike Young, political science professor at Penn State University's
Harrisburg campus and moderator of the "First Thursday" debate on PCN.

Young said past drug use is clearly relevant to some offices and not others.

As for Eisenhower's claim that it's a "gotcha" game, Young said, "He makes
a good point. He's wrong in this instance. He raises it in a self-serving
way."

Of all offices, it's certainly a fair question for someone seeking to
become the chief law enforcement officer of Pennsylvania - an official who
helps set the state's policies on drug prosecutions, Young said. It is
clearly relevant to that job, he said. Fisher recently told the Legislature
that the war on drugs is the top priority of his office.

County commissioner? Young doesn't see it. District attorney more clearly
falls under the relevancy argument, Young said.

With other general offices it's a harder case to make, he said.

One exception might be governor, Young said, not only because of the
leadership role the governor plays in setting policy on prosecution and
penalties for drug use and other crimes, but also from a standpoint of
"temperament" in the state's chief executive.

Candidates for president might be viewed the same.

"I think it's fair in the context of the office being sought," Young said.

This is clearly an area where we might go overboard on occasion.

However, drug policies have changed significantly since many politicians
who are middle-aged today were in college. Penalties are a lot stiffer.
State prisons are bulging at the seams - at taxpayers' expense - housing
many people convicted of drug laws, and other statutes, requiring
minimum-mandatory penalties.

Isn't it fair then to ask the people setting this policy about their own
experience? It may or may not be a factor worthy of rejecting their candidacy.

It is simply relevant information.

It's good at least that the question is being raised on whether it is an
appropriate topic, Young said.

"That, in and of itself, is healthy," Young said.