> We don't punish people based on their net worth but on the impact that their actions had.

This means I should be able to steal at the supermarket and if caught, only pay for what I stole?

The fine is supposed to act as a deterrent, right?

A completely unrelated observation, but some countries actually fine based on a person's net worth.

Here is an example from Finland where someone received a 54.000 Euro speeding ticket: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-31709454

No we also add in a punitive fine as a deterrent so the crime doesn’t happen again in the future. Punishment should be equal which means high net worth criminals should pay proportional punitive fines.

_You_ don't. Others do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine

Specifically, that's based on (aggregate) income, not net worth, but it still intends to be more proportionate to avoid making crimes legal for rich people.

There was actually a recent case in Germany of a wealthy man taking to court over a traffic violation fine, the fine being upheld in court and subsequently corrected to a much larger fine because the original fine was based on a much lower estimate of his income and by challenging it he had to reveal his actual income.

Of course the problem with linear scales like this is that wealth doesn't scale linearly (e.g. the practical difference between an income of $10k and $0 is much greater than between $10k and $20k) but it still seems more reasonable than "punishing based on the impact" alone if it is after all intended to be a punishment (and it clearly is, otherwise we wouldn't have prisons).

If the SEC only fines 5x the profit, they have to fine at least 20% of offenses to make this an unprofitable business practice (never mind punishing it). Does the SEC even have the manpower for that?

And if you steal $5 from a grocery store if it's your first offense, in my state it's a summary offense punishable by up to 90 days in jail and fine of up to $300 (60x the amount).

The problem with these crimes is that you'll get away with it some multiplier of times you get caught. So if you can do it 20 times and get caught once it doesn't matter if you lost 5x the amount. You're still ahead and can chalk the little fines up to the cost of doing illegal business.

I don't see it that way. If your job is to promote things part of your process, with respect to ascertaining the validity of that work, should be in a wide range of ethics. She knows she has fans that will believe anything she says which is part of the reason why she's paid to promote things. But if all of the sudden a bleach company is paying Kim to promote drinking it to prevent and cure cancer it might feel different. Kim is still directly hurting people through her brand, but in a different way.

> Also, if you buy something just because a celebrity told you to, you have poor decision making skills and it’s worth your while to work on that.

While likely unpopular I wish there were some decent studies on this topic. Like age demographics, screen time in social media, income, schooling, and other background information on the people that fit into this charade. I think this would shed some light on the predatory marketing Kim, potentially, engages in - knowingly or not.

The SEC has real, legal teeth. In this case, Ms. Kardashian took a legal settlement to avoid a criminal verdict. In a prior job, a mutual fund startup, I was restricted from purchasing stocks unless I ran it through an internal company process first, then ran it by the SEC, all because, as sysadmin, I had access to "live stock feed", which is considered privileged information. If I had a hunch to buy something, by the time I ran that potential purchase through those two processes and got permission, generally the window of opportunity had closed. Of course, I knew this because it was made explicitly clear to me when I took the job, and when we went through the paperwork to setup the live stock feed.

Still, my lack of awareness would not have been a valid excuse, had I crossed the line with the SEC, and the potential penalties were very real, and very steep. Then again, I didn't have vast resources to keep on-staff legal personnel to manage my interactions with them, nor was I a celebrity or politician, so all the rules apply to me, all the time, where that might not be the case in every situation.

>She's not a criminal.

Technically, sure, but only because she settled the charges. Settling doesn't mean you aren't a criminal, you just weren't convicted in court.

>Not disclosing it is an ethical dilemma and she's paid in much more than she made.

Nope. ~$250k is what she was paid, $1.6million is what she was fined.

>Also, if you buy something just because a celebrity told you to, you have poor decision making skills and it’s worth your while to work on that.

Classy.

> She’s not a criminal.

And the million dollars she paid to settle this, was that a "charitable donation"?

It is unfortunate the US allows wealthy people to "settle" via fines while the poor often face jail time instead.

Had she not "settled" it would have went to court, and if she was found guilty what would that have made her then?