More on-topic: I remain amazed by how the past quarter century of American legislation has included one overwhelming boon for corporations after another. Once corporations could give an infinitly higher amount of political contributions when compared to individual citizens, it became clear that the overall well-being and happiness of corporations was the only real political focus. Anything that doesnt directly or indirectly benefit a group of corporations is almost always designed to manipulate the electorate through invented/perceived/embiggened/non-cromulent "social issues".
What's the mechanism for this? Genuine question: I read an overview over Sarbanes-Oxley and it seems like a reasonable idea.
To whatever extent SOX compliance makes it more complex to go public, it has no meaningful effect on legitimate successful companies - if you think going public will allow you to raise the most money, you'll go public; if ZIRP meant you could indefinitely raise private money, you'd stay private. Finance and startup bros want to blame companies staying private on SOX, but it has everything to do with either (1) the companies being deeply questionable from an accounting perspective, or (2) the companies being able to raise whatever investments they wanted in private without taking any of the costs of an IPO (e.g. the IPO pop, which could (simplisticaly) be thought of as money being made by the banks underwriting the IPO rather than by the existing owners/investors).