If, however, the evidence is actually insufficient to establish that the defendants participated in such a campaign, then they did not violate RICO, and presumably the verdict against them will be reversed. I realize that even an ill-conceived lawsuit can cause enormous damage to defendants, who are forced to defend themselves, sometimes at great expense. But virtually any law can be abused, and unfounded or harrassing lawsuits should not lead us to deny appropriate remedies to those who can legitimately claim damages. It seems to me generally a poor idea to change the law in response to what may be perceived as an unfair result, at least until the courts have finally spoken. But now the more radical counsel.
Some laws are more subject to abuse than others.
RICO strikes me as such a law. But the problem is not the inlcusion of some particular predicate act, such as extortion. Nor is the problem unfounded lawsuits brought by over-aggressive plaintiffs' lawyers. The problem is that the protean and abstract statute is too broad, and does not sensibly discriminate between serious patterns of organized criminality and less significant kinds of violations. The Justice Department won't want to hear this, because it is a conservative organization and does not want to lose a tool which has proved very effective, but I think if the Committee is serious about RICO reform, it should ask much more fundamental questions.