What are the arguments for and against the extensive use of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)?

What will be an ideal response?

RICO has been used so successfully that many corporate and brokerage firm attorneys are making appeals to the legislature through the press to limit the application of RICO. They argue that the statute is unfair because it does not require that a defendant be convicted of the alleged criminal activity before a civil RICO suit can be brought. They argue that this lack of a requirement of a previous conviction leads to spurious lawsuits and encourages out-of-court settlements by intimidated legitimate businesspersons. Opponents also argue that the courts are, or will be, "flooded" with such lawsuits and that valuable resources will thus be wasted. They also argue that the law was designed to attack "organized crime," not employees of "legitimate businesses," against whom it is now being successfully used.
Proponents of RICO argue that the law should continue in force as it is. They point out that fraud is a national problem, costing the nation more than $200 billion each year. Proponents further believe that given our lack of success in prosecuting criminal fraud cases in the past, we should retain this tool, which may allow us to punish persons who have been able to escape criminal prosecution. Criminal activity in "legitimate" businesses is a major problem facing the country today, and curing it can only enhance the reputations of those in the business world. If a corporation and its officers are not engaging in illegal or quasi-legal activities, they have nothing to fear from RICO.