If a corporation is a really bad citizen, should it's charter to operate be restricted or revoked?

Question

The fines levied on corporations are too tiny to get their attention in most cases, and are just considered a business cost.
Revoking or amending their charters for violations would send out major signals. The attorney general of a state may revoke a corporate charter. It was considered for Unocal in California.
Of course the investment ramifications would be huge,
and make other corporations pay attention, and be better citizens.

Originally, corporations were chartered for a limited time, for limited purposes. The 14th amendment, meant to give Blacks civil rights, was applied to corporations and led to greatly increased powers, not it's original intent.
Corporate charters can be, and have been, limited to prevent abuse.

Answer 1

Isn't being a bad citizen too broad? Wouldn't major law and guidelines have to be broken? If not, who would be the judge? I think that you know that money pays a big part in this consideration. I think that it an enlightening idea, I just wonder at first glance- how would it be regulated? Money is the big player. Thanks for making me think about something different.

Answer 2

Fines against corporations are a lot like taxes on cigarettes. The politicians say that the fines/taxes are there to influence behavior, but they are really there as a source of revenue. If you revoke a corporation's charter and put them out of business, the states will lose both the fines and the corporate taxes.

Answer 3

So revoke their charter and put them out of business? Punish the employees by putting them out of work? Punish the shareholders by making them losing their investments? Punish the public by reducing competition and increasing prices? That doesn't sounds like a particularly bright idea to me.

Answer 4

I think that's a great revolutionary idea that can change business forever.