The Rose State Attorney General filed suit against Active Arbitration (AA), a private dispute resolution company that operated nationwide. AA's headquarters were about 2,000 miles from Rose State and AA had no employees or operation in Rose State, except for when a consumer demanded an in person hearing after losing an arbitration based on paper filings. The Attorney General alleged that AA misled consumers with representations of neutral arbitration practices when in fact AA had financial ties to the credit card companies whose contracts required arbitration with AA. Just three days after filing suit, AA agreed to a consent judgment to stop arbitrating such complaints entirely. The attorney general crowed to you, his political advisor for his reelection campaign this fall, about this success, sending you multiple copies of the press releases on the suit. He suggests that you nickname him the "Big Dog" and bragged that he singlehandedly stopped credit card arbitrations on a national basis. You have recently caught wind that the opposing candidate for the attorney general's job has a different take on the AA litigation. He is developing a series of attack ads, asserting that the attorney general needs to avoid pursuing and creating national remedies because it is a waste of the taxpayers of Roses' dollars and that it reflects a sense of knowing what is best for everyone rather than doing the job at hand. Are these criticisms valid? In the upcoming debate, what arguments do you expect the opponent to flush out in support of his positions? How will you advise the incumbent attorney general to respond