GOING TOE TO TOE WITH BILL LOCKYER

Register Editorial Board discussions with state Attorney General Bill
Lockyer are always rousing, given several significant areas of
disagreement we have with some aspects of his philosophical outlook and
some positions he has taken on state and national issues.

Last week's meeting was no different. Mr. Lockyer as usual was genial,
well-informed and, with 25 years of experience in the Legislature
before winning the AG post, highly knowledgeable about what's going on
in state politics.

As the state's top cop, he is in charge of police work, crime labs, a
variety of prosecutorial efforts as well as defending the state in
lawsuits and the information technology used by law enforcement. When
we met with him two years ago during his election campaign, he vowed to
use his legislative skills to obtain more funding for his department,
in particular for poorly performing crime labs.

He is doing just that. His department's budget has grown 13.2 percent
in the fiscal 2000-01 budget just passed, to $64 million.

He said he was able to convince Governor Davis to designate $100
million to improve crime labs, notably Los Angeles', and to earmark
another $50 million to accelerate testing of key evidence in rape
cases.

While we question the increase to his own budget, we have been
concerned about deteriorating crime lab performance and what that means
to treatment of individuals in the justice system.

Mr. Lockyer has spent his departmental budget increases on upgrading
compensation and benefits, particularly for scientists and special
agents, and on special efforts, such as doubling the size of the
MediCal fraud staff to roughly 40 lawyers and investigators. He also
has spent on technology, including a relational database that allows
the six different "data bundles" used in law enforcement to "talk" to
each other.

Here's our review of some of his policies:

*On gun control, Mr. Lockyer is far from our position supporting the
Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. But Mr. Lockyer opposes
more gun laws until he first implements those passed in 1999, in
particular the "junk guns" bill that banned certain inexpensive guns.
Reflecting his new position as enforcer rather than enactor of laws, he
lamented, "It's a lot easier to write a law than it is to administer
and enforce it."

* On the Microsoft antitrust trial, he reaffirmed his position that
California's participation in the trial, begun in 1998 by the U.S.
Justice Department, should continue.

Earlier this year, federal Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson found the
software firm guilty of antitrust violations and ruled that it be
broken in two; the case is on appeal.

But we were surprised when Mr. Lockyer told us he was the state
attorney general who convinced other state AGs that the harsher remedy,
dividing the company, should be pursued, instead of a lesser sanction.

We strongly disagreed with his interpretation of the applicable law and
his assessment of changes in the industry.

Since the suit was filed, the supposedly damaged party, Netscape, has
become part of the America Online-Time Warner conglomerate, which is
almost as big as Microsoft.

Another supposedly harmed company, database giant Oracle, also has
become nearly as big as Microsoft. How can companies be "harmed" if
they keep growing exponentially and nearly surpass their rival?

Mr. Lockyer argued that it wasn't size but market share as well as
consumer harm that counted in the case. We countered that companies
struggle daily with changing market conditions, as it should be, to
innovate and best serve customers.

And, evidence that consumers have been harmed by Microsoft practices is
hard to find.

*We find Mr. Lockyer's emphasis on consumer advocacy issues somewhat
disturbing. Not only did he take a leading role in the campaign to
split Microsoft Corp., but he has railed against oil company
profiteering, endorsed the state's anti-tobacco lawsuit involvement and
told us that he is joining a lawsuit against CD manufacturers because
of their pricing contracts with retail outlets.

We find this sort of opportunistic corporate-bashing - increasingly
embraced by politicians at all levels - to be a dangerous trend.

States attorneys general have immense powers to harm and even destroy
legitimate businesses. Finding questionable reasons to target software
makers, oil companies, gun makers and any other "evil corporation" du
jour sends a chilling message to the marketplace and politicizes the
rule of law.

Mr. Lockyer nodded sympathetically when we pointed to this irony: A
state government that has yet to meet its constitutional obligation to
return smog impact fees is picking on private companies for seemingly
minor abuses.

Yet don't expect him to change this popular consumer-advocate approach.

*On medical marijuana Mr. Lockyer has been sympathetic in word but
somewhat disappointing in deed. He affirmed that last week's Supreme
Court decision to delay an injunction that would have allowed the
Oakland cannabis cooperative to distribute to medical-necessity
patients does not affect California law and that his duty is to defend
California law, which allows patients with a doctor's prescription to
use marijuana medicinally.

He did write a letter to Janet Reno asking the U.S. Justice Department
not to file the appeal that led to the Supreme Court decision, and he
may file a friend-of-the-court brief in the Oakland case. But he has
not formally rescinded the onerous Lungren guidelines for enforcement
under Prop. 215 or issued his own guidelines. He has not intervened in
an ongoing petition at the federal level to "reschedule" marijuana from
Schedule I, which prohibits use, to another schedule that would allow
physicians to prescribe it, under federal law.

He said he was not aware of the Pearson v. McCaffrey suit in the
Washington, D.C. federal court that contends the federal government has
no right to regulate medical marijuana in California because there's no
interstate commerce involved.

As we said at the outset, a rousing discussion of issues indeed.