Is the Sarbanes-Oxley Act an unfair burden on companies? Why or why not?

Cost of storage, has gone down significantly since 2002 when the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was written. These are publicly traded companies that usually keep multiple backups of their data anyway. This just obligates them not to erase them, to prevent corporate misdeeds.

Should the government distinguish between large and smaller companies? Why or why not?

The Government should distinguish between large and small companies. And the Sarbanes-Oxley only applies to larger companies. To be precise it applies to publicly traded companies or companies that are about to do an IPO (Initial Public Offering). That is because the burden of compliance would take up too much a small company’s resources. Also since they do not have shareholders, small companies cannot defraud them.

Are such laws necessary in order to protect the public? Why or why not?

Sarbanes-Oxley and other such laws are absolutely necessary for public protection. We have gone through several massive corporate frauds and misdeeds. Enron, Worldcom, Tyco and, since the 2008 financial crisis, many other large Corporations defrauded their investors out of billions of dollars. This was partly because the leadership of these corporations had calculated that they could cover their crime and never be caught. Some of them certainly miscalculated and were caught. But many were not prosecuted to the full extent of the law because of the difficulty of gathering criminal evidence against them. Such laws improve the odds of successful prosecution of criminal corporate leaders and are likely to discourage many who contemplate engaging in such corporate acts criminal. The financial crisis of 2008 that caused a massive nation depression shows the true cost of such misdeeds.