check out Frank Partnoy on the Rating agencies. He did a very long analysis where he found the 1st amendment stuff somewhat fragile, an legal accident waiting to happen.
You might google it. I think I found it the same way…..

BR and thanks for your great work all these days….

“This Policy is noncancelable,” it says. “The premium on this Policy is not refundable for any reason, including payment of the Obligations prior to maturity.” The policy does not insure “against any risk other than Nonpayment.”

There was nothing in the specimen policy mentioning a rating downgrade. On page 4, under the section entitled “Bond Insurance” was this sentence: “No assurance can be given by the Authority that the Bond Insurer will be able to meet its obligation under the Policy.”

Time to Pull Out, Read Your Bond Insurance Policies:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=bondheads&sid=aEvmWsbmb2HE

No, he does mean First Amendment. No one has ever successfully sued a rating agency for bad ratings. They claim a First Amendment exemption, that they are journalists publishing opinion. That fiction has been repeatedly affirmed in court decisions.

We cited in an earlier post an article that argued that ratings agencies were sufficiently involved in structuring CDOs that they could be deemed to be underwriters and thus liable. No one has puled off that line of attack, however.

Google “rating agencies” and “first amendment” for more detail. This, for instance comes from an SEC release. Note that the rating agencies (NRSROs) are objecting to regulation because it might weaken their First Amendment protection. They want to have their cake and eat it too:

Some commenters9 believe that the NRSRO designation acts as a barrier to entry into the credit rating business. Others have raised concerns about the extent of the Commission’s legal authority to regulate or impose requirements on NRSROs. Commenters argue that the Commission does not have explicit regulatory authority over NRSROs, and that it would be inappropriate for the Commission to impose a more comprehensive regulatory framework on rating agencies absent legislation. Others have argued that NRSRO rating activities are journalistic and are consequently afforded a high level of protection under the First Amendment. According to these commenters, suggestions that the Commission inspect or otherwise impose regulatory burdens on NRSROs would implicate the NRSROs’ First Amendment rights. They further believe that new legislation providing the Commission with additional authority over NRSROs would face the same First Amendment challenges.

Assume you mean fifth amendment.

We’ll all be cheering when you do…or someone else does.