Top lawyer

The candidates for attorney general should start debating the issues that matter

Lois Pines and Tom Reilly, the two tenacious Democratic contenders for the office of attorney general, are engaged in what has easily become the most acidic statewide campaign of 1998. Pines is an ambitious liberal state senator from Newton; Reilly is the steely Middlesex DA who prosecuted Edward O'Brien and Louise Woodward. Given their contrasting styles, few are surprised to see them clash. Pines, having already amassed a substantial war chest, has attacked Reilly for taking money from special interests he would regulate as attorney general. Reilly has strafed back over reports that Pines, in an effort to slow his fundraising, made bullying phone calls to his supporters, threatening future retribution.

These are, to be sure, serious charges. But bitter attacks should not obscure the central issues of the campaign to succeed Democratic incumbent Scott Harshbarger for the job of Massachusetts's top regulatory and law-enforcement officer. (A Republican, former Middlesex County sheriff Brad Bailey, is also running.) The powers of a modern attorney general extend well beyond Dragnet-style crime-busting to include overseeing the state's biggest industries and serving as public lawyer and watchdog. Rather than snipe at one another, Pines and Reilly should concentrate on debating some of the fundamental issues they would be called on to deal with:

Health care. Medicine is evolving alarmingly fast, and as managed care and for-profit health care sweeps the industry, it's up to regulators such as the attorney general to ensure that top-quality care doesn't take a back seat to the bottom line -- especially when it comes to low-income patients, whose financially limited choices put them most at the industry's mercy. And what do the candidates think should be done to protect the rights of patients to keep their records confidential?

Environment. The law is a cornerstone of environmental protection. Scott Harshbarger has played a lead role in crafting "brownfields" legislation to clean up contaminated lots in urban areas. The latest reminder of the need for strong regulation and prosecution comes from the General Electric plant in Pittsfield, which contaminated surrounding neighborhoods and local water supplies with cancer-causing PCBs -- a case in which Harshbarger has also been active.

Political corruption. Harshbarger's investigations and prosecutions of several popular public figures -- including aides to former Boston mayor Ray Flynn and former attorney general Edward McCormack -- have left him with plenty of enemies within the state political establishment. Such resentment should not cause his successor to shy away from pursuing corruption cases. But Harshbarger's mixed record of courtroom victories suggests the next attorney general might want to vet potential cases more judiciously.

Death penalty. Last fall, the state legislature was just one vote away from reinstating capital punishment in Massachusetts. The attorney general doesn't prosecute death penalty cases and is required to uphold state law regardless of personal philosophy. But the office can serve as an important bully pulpit from which to influence the public debate. Though it has yet to become a major issue, the candidates disagree on capital punishment: Reilly supports it; Pines doesn't.

Anti-sodomy laws. Massachusetts still has two anti-sodomy laws on the books, one dating to 1784 and the other to 1887. The next attorney general should call for the repeal of these antiquated statutes, as the Rhode Island legislature did to that state's 1896 law earlier this month. (The bill now awaits the governor's signature.) Pines supports repealing the laws. Reilly, who sees the laws as an extra weapon for jailing child molesters, would only narrow or amend them.

Whatever the candidates' relative merits, their continued salvos about each other's campaign finances and fundraising tactics are crowding out issues of real significance to voters. Reilly has called on Pines to participate in a series of primary debates. She should accept, but only if the two intend to hurl ideas and not mud.

What do you think? Send an e-mail to letters[a]phx.com.