We don't have effective spam laws in the US because spammers lobby heavily against them when they are considered. It's NOT because legislators can't come up with effective, free speech (as opposed to frea speach) -protecting laws.

We have rather good, effective laws against junk faxes (if you know about them), so there's little reason to think we couldn't have any against spam. The vast majority of spammers/spam beneficiaries are US-based.

Yes, I can support these claims with hard evidence.

Key question: How do you think this law should define spam, Brad?
I'm all for the standard definition: UBE (for good detailed definitions see MAPS or spamhaus).