Sarbanes Oxley and All Similar Legislation Should Be Repealed

Thank you for the opportunity. However, I disagree with your argument on several points. Your first claim is that corporate failures are not a social cost. This proposition assumes that SOX was designed to prevent corporate failures, but such is not the case. Corporations can fail for a number of reasons aside from fraud and shady bookkeeping practices. Failing to adapt to a changing market is one example. (http://www.utvi.com...). SOX does not insinuate itself into marketing decisions or product development. It merely says, if you're going to do business in this country, you're going to do it honestly and fairly... or else. However, even assuming the intention of SOX is to somehow stabilize corporations from collapse, the failure of a corporation through deceit and fraudulent practices most certainly exacts a social cost beyond investors and employees. Notwithstanding, to minimize investors and employees as a "select group" within society belies the large number of individuals who are employed by Corporate America. In 2007, 63% of the American public comprised the civilian labor force in this country. (http://www.census.gov...). I'd venture to say that a large portion of the population works for Corporate America in some capacity or another - a number in the tens of millions. Those people make up the employees and investors whom you say are the "very select group" that corporate failures affect. Whether you define "costs" in financial or moral terms, the effects of the insidious type of corporate failure marked by Enron and the like, have rippling effects not only throughout a large part of our county, but the world as well. On top of the financial effects of losing one's job or investments, the feeling that one can't trust one's employer or business partner to act with integrity and fairness stifles growth, prosperity and career aspirations within the workforce. Further, it tarnishes the image of Corporate America in the eyes of the nation and the world. Such a pessimistic view also negatively influences domestic and international economic stability. When you state "[t]he public does not really suffer from organizational collapses in anything but the short term," you admit that there is some social cost that reaches beyond just investors and employees. However, the current economic climate, which is predicted to last for a substantial period, should tell you that corporate instability can have long-ranging effects both in terms of time and scope. Factories and homes don't get sold, and people don't get new jobs as easily as you write it. Your second claims posits that investors can police their own investments. I agree. However, they can only do so to a certain extent. The natural structure of a corporation involves a dissemination of certain information that goes from top to bottom. Information that the average investor has limited to no involvement in gathering, analyzing, compiling, or presenting. Those tasks are entrusted to a select few, such as top-level executives, board members and accountants. If the information is false and misleading, should the investor be held at fault for relying on the fraudulent actions of those people? Moreover, should the crooks be let off with a mere slap on the wrist and an empty wallet? People lose their life savings, their pensions, their kids' college funds. People lose their dreams because of these greedy, selfish liars. You point to Aksia's work in the Madoff case of to show that investors have resources available to them to monitor their investments. However, the availability of resources is not the issue. Aksia became suspicious because of the three-person accounting firm and the "high degree of secrecy" surrounding the trading of the feeder funds. Based on those "red-flags," Aksia advised its clients not to invest. (http://www.bloomberg.com...). Nothing in their work revealed the depth of the deception Madoff employed. The only thing the Madoff case proved is that people are going to act irresponsibly despite the law, and its relevance with respect to SOX is minimal at best. SOX does not protect investments as you state. In sum, it provides for auditor regulation, executive accountability, independent oversight, timely and accurate dissemination of information and stricter penalties. (http://en.wikipedia.org...). SOX won't prevent criminals from breaking the law, but it does make it harder for them to get away with it. When it comes to corporate fraud, it's not the incompetent people that are at fault, but the greedy ones. I agree that corporations should stand or fall on the strength its ideas and leaders, and if someone isn't smart enough to get his money out when the ship is sinking, then tough on him. However, I do have a problem with liars and crooks. There are too many tragedies in the past decade to ignore the problem and let Corporate America to its own devices. Perhaps there may be some flaws in SOX in its current state, but not enough to repeal it. Changes and amendments can be made over time, just like any law can be altered or created to adjust to the current social climate. Even the document upon which our nation is founded can be changed if the people so choose it. The benefits of accountability and integrity that SOX exacts from Corporate America ring true to the values that many Americans hold, and outweigh any minor imperfections it may have at present. That said, I respectfully disagree with your position on the issue.