[cucumber3732842]

That would be like showing up for the battle of Kursk with an M18 battalion. Might go well at first, you might score some big flashy wins, but....ugh... things are gonna get worse as the party goes on and it's generally an ill advised strategy.

Rico as written and enforced walks right up to the limit of constitutionality in a dozen ways. It's built for speed. It's never really been thrown into a knock down drag out legal action between titans on equal footing (i.e. a bigco legal team, potentially helped by other bigcos). It might survive nominally but it probably won't come out the other end in serviceable condition. You might win a few but eventually an appeal will find its target and end your day.

I say go for it. Heads I win. Tails you get RICO reform.

[wombatpm]

I’d be ok with civil asset forfeiture for corporate officers

[cucumber3732842]

Are you serious? That sort of inequality under the law for people we don't like is literally how we got here, both in terms of civil asset forfeiture as it currently exists and all the precedents that bigco legal teams can leverage to make the law apply differently for them.

"I'd be ok with civil asset forfeiture for drug traffickers/dealers"

-The 1980s equivalent of you

[wombatpm]

We can’t have a death penalty for corporations (because economy and jobs and too big to fail) so there needs to be something to put the fear of god into them.

And when CAF is found to be too draconian for rich people maybe there will finally be the political will to do away with it totally.