FWIW, I see you saying this, but there are running examples of fines scaling to income, e.g. personal income and speeding tickets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland...

I'm also not sure that "scaling with the offense" makes sense -- If company A and B can do the same thing, receive equal fines, but company B can continue to exist as if nothing happened, did the fine mean anything? Would your argument in this case be that the fine should be high enough to be damaging enough to both companies, approximately equal to the social value of discouraging that behavior?

Curious especially because you said if the laws changed, you'd be ambivalent. I think there's a structural problem here, I'm not sure any amount of fining particularly will solve the real problem.

FWIW my personal opinion is the the goal should be to deter from unethical and/or (borderline) illegal activity in the future, not only that specific behaviour. Anything else turns into a game of whack-a-mole which is long term damaging to the economy and competitive environment.

This just allows corporations to compartmentalize their risks. They can put all their illegal activities in a side division, and if they don't pan out no worries since we only get fined on the revenue of the failed project.

How would that deter them though?