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

DATE: FRIDAY, December 10, 1993                   TAG: 9404220014
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A14   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

NOW AND RICO

ARGUING BEFORE the U.S. Supreme Court this week, the National Organization for Women and the Clinton administration said it should be OK to use a federal racketeering law to go after abortion foes who have joined a "nationwide campaign of terror."

But anyone who likes this particular statute should regret that the case was brought, for the justices ought to rule against NOW, the administration, and the expansive application of racketeering law.

The only defense of the 1970 Racketeer Influenced, Corrupt Organizations Act, a vague statute affording broad powers, is that it will be used wisely and appropriately. RICO was originally intended to fight organized crime syndicates. It targets "enterprises" that engage in a "pattern of racketeering."

But as Chief Justice William Rehn-quist has written, "Most of the civil suits filed under the statute have nothing to do with organized crime." Allowing penalties up to triple the alleged damage caused, the law is often used in suits involving business disputes.

Now the abortion-rights people want to use RICO against organizers of political protest, to punish politically inspired acts - a troubling precedent to say the least. Anti-abortion violence and illegality ought to be prosecuted vigorously, but not under RICO.

The targets of NOW's suit say the statute requires an allegation of illicit financial gain. If it does, this would spare anti-abortion groups that break the law and are offensive in other ways, but that lack an economic motive. The courts have agreed with the defendants.

The Clinton administration, siding with NOW, argued Wednesday before the high court that such an interpretation of RICO would hurt government's ability to prosecute terrorists, who also aren't motivated by financial gain.

This may be a problem - but if so, it was a risk created by NOW when it undertook to insist on the right to use RICO against the likes of the Pro-Life Action League. It was also a risk inherent in a law written as broadly as RICO.

A federal court, in any case, has dimissed NOW's lawsuit, and the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed. The Supreme Court should do likewise, in the interests of First Amendment rights.

Randall Terry, head of Operation Rescue, may be many things, some of them nasty, but going after him with RICO poses less threat to racketeering than it does to free speech.

by CNB