Nowadays the answer to that question seems to be different for any person you ask, and dependent on whether or not the law being enforced aligns with said individual's ideological beliefs.

That's part of the problem not only in the US, but in the West in general at the moment.

That said, when you read the law, it's clear that Google and Facebook are in violation of it. They aren't providing requested political ad spend information to residents of Washington state on the spot. That Google and Facebook don't like a law does not confer to them the right to violate it.

I think the "activist" angle comes from being a state AG who regularly and publicly gets involved in the national discussion from the state-level chair they have. I wouldn't say it's a bad characteristic in an AG, but it's perhaps a bit unusual?

Another example would be New York's (former) AG, Eric Schneiderman, who has filed "over 50 lawsuits opposing Trump's environmental revisions", and of course, actively pursued Harvey Weinstein before resigning due to his own sexual harassment allegations.

I would guess that AG's regularly inserting themselves into the national conversation while being very public about it on Twitter and the like, especially, are prepping for a run at a more national political campaign in the future.

Depends on whether your party leader is declared above the law.