Jack Kemp held what was probably the most comprehensive grasp of the economic situation of any American politician in the latter half of the 20th century. Twenty-five years ago, when the internet was still in its relative infancy, Kemp participated in a debate regarding the wisdom of taxing internet commerce, during which the moderator, Michael Kinsley, quipped “even if Jack Kemp had no idea what the internet was he’d still be against taxing it.” Much the same could be said in the reverse of several politicians concerning this generation’s burgeoning economic miracle — the assemblage of new and proliferating high-tech wizardry, including artificial intelligence.

Colorado’s Attorney General Phil Weiser, in particular, has claimed the tech sector as one of the many targets meriting the litigious attention of the long arm of the state. During the last seven years, AG Weiser has developed a sweet tooth for litigation; spurred, perhaps, by the success of a multi-state settlement against pharmaceutical companies for their part early on in igniting the opioid crisis. To Weiser’s credit, those proceeds have been generally quite wisely used in Colorado for ameliorating the crisis, and he did resist the temptation to pursue extraneous claims that would have threatened Colorado’s share of the settlement. Since then, however, there has hardly been an ideological litigation de joure the AG has not seen fit to join or lead.

The latest was an antitrust lawsuit against Google, claiming the tech company violated antitrust law by maintaining a monopoly over online advertising. Late last week a federal court agreed, setting what some consider a rather worrisome precedent. Ryan Young, a senior economist with the Competitive Enterprise Institute summed it up this way:

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

“Antitrust cases have two main ways of proving an illegally maintained monopoly. One is artificially high prices. The other is restricted supplies. Google doesn’t meet either of those standards. When this case was filed, online ad prices had fallen in half in the previous decade. If Google did have a monopoly, it was doing a terrible job taking advantage of it.”

Last year, AG Weiser turned his spotlight onto the AI industry, backing a bill, SB24-205, that would ostensibly establish consumer protections around the nascent technology. That bill earned the ire of virtually the entire tech sector, which warned of its potential stultifying effect on the achievements and potential of an exciting and innovative new enterprise, and likely diversion of investment away from the state.

This is a rather different tack than the one adopted by the man Weiser hopes to succeed, Gov. Jared Polis. Polis, who is himself a former tech entrepreneur, tends to favor a more libertine attitude to high tech; indeed, though he ultimately signed last year’s AI bill “with reservations,” he had quite ostentatiously considered vetoing it, illuminating the contrast in style between him and AG Weiser.

Now, it’s not unreasonable to assume part of the reason for Gov. Polis’ enthusiasm in attracting high-tech industries to the state is because he needs something to fill the enormous economic hole left when he spearheaded the dismantlement of the state’s energy industry — and marijuana just ain’t doing it. Still, his more laissez faire approach to high tech provides an interesting juxtaposition to Weiser’s heavier hand.

Weiser’s predilection for court-backed regulation and litigation also sets him apart from his predecessors in the AG’s office. Both Cynthia Coffman and John Suthers were far more reticent when it came to signing onto multi-state lawsuits, even when urged to do so by fellow Republican AGs. Suthers, especially, was loathe to sign on to partisan lawsuits that strayed too far from the purview of his office. This attracted considerable wrath from the more demagogic flanks of their party, but it was the right thing to do.

There is little question the hyper-litigiousness that permeates American public society has been a problem for some time and continues scarcely abated. According to the Colorado Civil Justice League, some 52,000 lawsuits are filed every day in the U.S., and one in three business owners report they have been sued or threatened with a lawsuit. These are not cheap — the cost to defend oneself can quickly reach $50,000 if settled out of court, and exceed $100,000 if it goes to trial. American consumers, of course, end up footing the bill.

Meanwhile, the argument persists other things ought to be captivating the attention of the attorney general, like the inverse relation between public safety and the crime rate. We are left with the question: ought it be the priority of an AG — or governor — to deploy the functionality of the state in pursuit of maximizing the safety of the citizenry through the maintenance of order and the enforcement of criminal law; or to do so in pursuit of leading new and exciting industries down the stultifying path of bureaucratic encumbrance?

Kelly Sloan is a political and public affairs consultant and a recovering journalist based in Denver.