> The problem is that the statutory fines need to be setup so that they are actually a deterrent rather than a cost of doing business

Out of curiosity, how high are the fines now?

> Why 100%? Because they should be effectively put out of business if they get to their third offense. California has the third strike rule for people and crime, let's make it the same for corporations; they're people after all.

If you've already lost 75% of your all-time revenue, you're probably already out of business. Heck, a loss of 25% of all revenue ever is enough to knock most businesses out.

It'd be interesting to consider the unintended effects of such a law. Making sure you regularly pay out any spare cash as dividends to the owners seems likely, as it reduces the risk (meaning, if they get fined, they've already taken out of the business all that they can).

> California has the third strike rule for people and crime, let's make it the same for corporations; they're people after all.

A big practical difference is that corporations have limited liability. Because of limited liability, such laws are going to hit very differently than sending people to jail, because the owners can avoid much much more of the personal risk than an equivalent person could under Three Strikes.