Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: TUESDAY, August 8, 1995                   TAG: 9508080041
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-5   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: TOM HOLT
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

VIRGINIA'S A.G.

But as Gilmore positions himself for a likely run for governor in 1997, the civil-law and regulatory aspects of his agenda are beginning to resemble the wet-finger-in-the-wind reign of Mary Sue Terry that he so effectively excoriated as a candidate. Gilmore has compiled a mixed record that leads one to wonder whether his self-described "conservative" principles are subject to change to meet political needs.

For example, his office filed briefs on both sides in the Wide Awake case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the University of Virginia could not refuse a student newspaper access to activity funds merely because it expresses a religious viewpoint. The attorney general's office was obliged to defend UVa, an arm of the commonwealth. Gilmore's office also filed an unusual friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Wide Awake newspaper. Yet Gilmore lambasted Terry for failing vigorously to defend Virginia Military Institute in its fight with the U.S. Justice Department. Which of the attorney general's diametrically opposed briefs was the high court supposed to take seriously?

To be sure, Wide Awake was an important religious-liberty case, and Gilmore's friend-of-the-court brief took a bitingly correct position that just happened to serve his political interests. Evangelist Pat Robertson contributed $50,000 to his 1993 campaign - despite the fact that Gilmore is pro-choice on abortion.

Then there's Gilmore's dogged pursuit of Trigon Blue Cross/Blue Shield, in which he has made an alliance of convenience with liberal consumer-advocates, such as Jean Ann Fox of the Virginia Citizens Consumer Council. Fox is an effective, high-profile advocate of regulation, which leads one to wonder if Gilmore really shares Gov. George Allen's (and other conservatives') desire to shrink government and reduce regulation.

The attorney general, with Fox, continues to rehash in angry terms a dispute - long since settled - involving Trigon's calculations of its policy-holders' copayments to hospitals.

Gilmore's consumer-advocate allies share with him an important group of supporters, many of whom spend their days fighting insurers in legal proceedings: trial lawyers.

A close examination of Gilmore's campaign-donor list reveals trial-lawyer contributions of more than $35,000, making him one of the nation's leading Republican state-level recipients of tort-lawyer largess. Contributors include lawsuit outfits such as Joynes & Bieber ($2,000) and Allen & Allen ($3,500). The Virginia Trial Lawyers Association, the trade group for the contingent-fee bar, gave $9,000. And, curiously, Washington lawyer-lobbyist Tommy Boggs, nicknamed "Tommy Torts" for his congressional lobbying on behalf of the lawsuit industry, donated $500.

Trial lawyers, who are among the most savvy campaign donors, seldom donate to Republicans and almost never to self-described conservatives. Rarely do they, as so many other business interests do, give to their political enemies. Tommy Boggs' contribution is the liability-lawyer equivalent of the Good Housekeeping Seal.

So what does the lawsuit industry stand to gain from Gilmore, other than the comfort of having a fellow trial lawyer in high state office? It is too soon to tell.

Jim Gilmore's lawsuit-industry connection is one more remarkable contradiction in the pliable political persona of Virginia's attorney general. He is the commonwealth's chief lawyer on two sides of the same case, the pro-choicer supported by the country's best known pro-lifer, the conservative making alliance with liberals whose votes he'll never get, the Republican reformer who has received $35,000 from one of the country's most influential anti-reform interest groups.

The political fallout of Gilmore's conflicting record easily could trim not only his own but also Gov. Allen's ambitions for higher office. Allen surely is mindful that the years 1994-97 will be remembered as the Allen administration, not the Gilmore administration. There is an obvious conflict between the attorney gerneral's regulatory agenda and the governor's "Virginia is open for business" theme. Indeed, some GOP business heavyweights privately are livid.

Such political chameleonism is not a formula for political success, as former Virginia Attorneys General Marshall Coleman and Mary Sue Terry can attest. The open question for the 1997 campaign is this: Where is Gilmore's center of political gravity? Perhaps only he knows for certain whether he possesses one.

Tom Holt is a senior fellow with the Commonwealth Foundation of Virginia in Fairfax and author of "The Rise of the Nanny State: How Consumer Advocates Try To Run Our Lives."