A review of RICO's legislative history shows the intention of Congress to use RICO against organized criminal involvement in economic endeavors; RICO was never intended to address noneconomic crimes. The U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of key statutory provisions of RICO have expanded RICO's intended scope. It has even been used in ideological disputes; for example, it has been used against abortion clinic protestors and antipornography groups. This article describes techniques used by antiabortion organizations to publicize their views and determines which of these methods are protected by the first amendment. Three examples of "mixed" conduct are portrayed, and then the article considers what happens when RICO clashes with the first amendment. In reviewing situations in which there is "mixed" conduct, some conduct protected by the first amendment, and some that is not, the article shows how the U.S. Supreme Court has protected against a chilling effect through use of the doctrines of void-for-vagueness and precision-of-regulation. The article argues that RICO should not apply to demonstrator on policy grounds. An analysis of the RICO reform proposals currently before Congress concludes that RICO should include an exemption of advocacy activity. 233 footnotes.