Reining in RICO Before It's Too Late

EARLIER this month, the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of 26 Philadelphia anti-abortion protesters who were fined $108,000 under the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) law.

While any inroads against these "boobs" (as Ted Turner calls them) may seem like cause for celebration, there is good reason not to break out the champagne.

RICO, put on the books in 1970, was aimed at organized crime--more specifically at Italian crime families known as the Mafia. Prosecutors were troubled that mobsters could keep running their businesses during criminal trials and even after convictions. Congress responded by passing powerful legislation permitting the seizure of "enterprises" that derive money from illegal activities. They also provided the extraordinary remedy of triple damages--meaning that courts could assess damages at three times the amount of injury actually suffered.

But in their zealousness, Congress went a little too far. Parts of the law were left intentionally vague to allow prosecutors free reign in their efforts to nail organized crime kingpins. There was also the valid worry that a law that singled out Italian-run organized crime would be unconstitutional.

And, as usual, the intended and unintended loopholes in the law have been used and abused in ways the bill's sponsors could never have imagined.

ONE mistake was allowing private parties to bring RICO suits. It works this way: You commit one illegal act. Then, anytime within 10 years, you commit another. Gotcha! RICO! See you in court!

What are most RICO suits over? Shootings? Gambling? Drug syndicates? Nope. Try messy divorces, will disputes and labor actions.

The scary part is that RICO, as it's used now, is undermining virtually every treasured right in our judicial system.

Take the notion of being innocent until you're proven guilty. When grandstanding U.S. Attorney Rudolph Giuliani went after partners in the Princeton/Newport investment firm on charges of securities fraud, he used RICO to freeze all the assets of the company. Soon after, they were out of business. All this before the defendants had had their day in court.

Or take the generally accepted right to hire your own attorney. Sorry, we froze all your bank accounts. You'll have to make do with a public defender. Remember, this is RICO. The rules are different here.

And those courtroom abuses are just the beginning. Where RICO really takes its toll is on free speech and the First Amendment.

After the Meese commission's pronouncement on pornography, the Justice Department began indicting book and video stores around the country. Selling $100-worth of obscene material was all that was needed to take away a whole chain of shops.

There's no reason why video chains like Blockbuster or Videosmith couldn't be a target. It won't be long before an FBI agent nonchalantly waltzes in to rent a couple of dirty movies and waltzes in a few days later with orders to seize not just that store, but every one in the chain. That kind of multi-million dollar ante doesn't exactly encourage store managers to vigorously assert their free speech rights by testing what does and doesn't violate community standards.

JUSTICE Department regulations now prohibit "creative" uses of RICO by the federal government, but this restriction doesn't apply to private organizations. In Philadelphia, an abortion clinic sued protesters who picketed their clinic weekly for nine years. The case was complicated by the fact that the defendants broke in a couple of times and damaged the clinic's equipment. The $108,000 award to the clinic was essentially a death sentence for the defendants' group.

The Philadelphia clinic's "success" has invigorated others who feel they have been slighted by the so-called "pro-life" movement's efforts. The town of Brookline, Mass--branded as unpatriotically liberal during the last presidential campaign--is invoking the wrath of RICO against Operation Rescue. Brookline is home to several abortion clinics and has therefore been the target of repeated protests. The town wants money for police overtime and injuries incurred by officers in the line of duty.

True liberals should be revulsed by the threat RICO poses to free speech and open political debate. But the breed of liberals that are more concerned with doing what's politically correct than with preserving people's rights also have a reason to be worried.

New Hampshire officials have already floated the idea of charging the anti-Seabrook Clamshell Alliance for the costs incurred by their civil disobedience. Just imagine what a RICO-like law would have done to the NAACP and other civil rights groups in the 1960s.

Liberal political opinion is not always in favor. Everywhere is not like Brookline. Eventually, they will come for us.

For store owners and political protesters, RICO's bottom-line result is and will be self-censorship. The Supreme Court once recognized this evil, writing that the First Amendment needs "breathing room."

Congress should take action before RICO smothers what so many have worked so hard to protect.