Critics argue that civil RICO is too broad, because it potentially applies to all commercial transactions. Specifically, opponents claim that RICO's inclusion of mail and wire fraud as predicate acts unjustly subjects all "legitimate businesses" to liability. From a political perspective, the most promising reform proposal attempts to limit civil RICO claims through a "gatekeeper" mechanism. This involves the use of a screening authority that would determine whether or not a civil RICO claim could proceed. Professor Norman Abrams suggests that a government prosecutor review all civil RICO claims and dismiss any that could not be criminally prosecuted. U.S. representative William J. Hughes proposes a judicial "gatekeeper" to oversee RICO claims. The Abrams proposal ignores civil RICO's remedial purposes. RICO was designed to compensate victims, not merely to fill prosecutorial gaps. Representative Hughes' view of the gatekeeper is marred by proposed criteria that will enable the judiciary to dismiss virtually every case at whim. For the gatekeeper concept to succeed, it must be based on objective standards that protect victims as well as defendants. This article proposes standards that achieve this effect by considering the magnitude of the harm and its social consequences. 189 footnotes.