IN 1967, A PRESIDENTIAL TASK FORCE IDENTIFIED FOUR METHODS BY WHICH ORGANIZED CRIME GAINED CONTROL OVER LEGITIMATE BUSINESS: INVESTING CONCEALED PROFITS ACQUIRED FROM GAMBLING AND OTHER LEGAL ENTERPRISES, ACCEPTING BUSINESS INTERESTS IN PAYMENT OF THE OWNER'S GAMBLING DEBTS, FORECLOSING ON USURIOUS LOANS, AND EXTORTION. BECAUSE EARLY VERSIONS OF ORGANIZED CRIME BILLS WERE TOO NARROW IN SCOPE, CONGRESS REACTED BY ENACTING AN OVERLY BROAD STATUTE, RICO, TO ELIMINATE THE INFILTRATION OF ORGANIZED CRIME AND RACKETEERING INTO LEGITIMATE ORGANIZATIONS OPERATING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. TO TO DETERMINE THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE AND CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR RICO, THE ARTICLE ANALYZES TERMS PECULIAR TO RICO, THE HISTORY OF THE LEGISLATION, AND COURT INTERPRETATIONS OF THE STATUTE. IT CONCLUDES THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE HAS A MUCH BROADER APPLICATION THAN ORIGINALLY CONCEIVED BY CONGRESS. THE COURTS, REFLECTING THE WIDESPREAD FEAR OF ORGANIZED CRIME'S PERVASIVENESS, HAVE ALSO BROADLY INTERPRETED THE STATUTE RAISING SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS AND PRACTICAL PROBLEMS. IF THE COURTS ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO EXPAND THE STATUTE BEYOND CONGRESSIONAL INTENT, THE SUPREME COURT MAY STRIKE DOWN MAJOR PORTIONS OF RICO AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THUS THWARTING THE OPERATION OF THE STATUTE. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED, AND SECTIONS OF THE STATUTE ARE APPENDED. (TAG)