A SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) lawsuit is a frivolous lawsuit made by someone who does not believe they can win. The main reason for them is to cause the defendant significant legal fees in the hopes the defendant will concede, despite having a winning case, to avoid the legal costs. The threat of a SLAPP lawsuit is allegedly used by many of the larger companies, or richest individuals, to bully other's into going along with their wishes to avoid being forced to pay prohibitively high defense costs to defend against a SLAPP.
As of now 31 states, and DC, have some form of anti-SLAPP laws. These laws usually consist of either a way to get a case thrown out very early if it is clearly frivolous, to avoid most fees, and/or a means to force the person suing to pay for the defendant's legal fees if it's ultimately determined the lawsuit was a SLAPP.
However, there are many situations where a lawsuit could be filed in any state, such as one involving anything said or done on TV or the internet. In these cases individuals wanting to file a SLAP lawsuit will find a reason to justify filing the lawsuit in one of the states without anti-SLAP laws, thus making SLAP lawsuits a real threat despite the majority of states having anti-SLAPP laws.
I'm wondering why there isn't universal anti-SLAPP laws. That is to say both why haven't the other 20 states created anti-SLAPP laws, and why hasn't the federal government attempted to enact any kind of anti-SLAPP legislation?
Are there arguments being made against anti-SLAPP legislation? I'm also wondering it the support, or denial, of anti-SLAPP legislation falls along political lines.