What you're saying is tantamount to saying a thief who likes prison food is also above the law, because he actually enjoys the penalty for the laws he breaks.
And if you had done that, I'd have never responded. What you said was:
>You're advocating for wealth being over the law.
Which no one has yet done, not even close. Justice, according to the law, is being served. You can argue that the penalty is unjust, which you have failed to do so far.
You can also argue that it's wrong to break the law, which is a new argument in the thread starting with your "over the law" comment.
Saying an entity isn't subject to the law because of wealth and saying that an entity shouldn't break the law are two completely different things. The first argument doesn't work because the companies in question are proving they are subject to the law by paying the fines. The second argument is new, nebulous, not particularly substantive, and otherwise better left ignored.
There are fines that impact big companies and rich people less because of deep pocketbooks. But parking tickets on delivery trucks are not such a fine. They scale linearly with bad-parking activity. As mikeash said, this case is effectively a tax.
This statement reeks of ignorance. That's like saying a poor person could easily afford chemo, while ignoring the fact that they won't be able to afford food or shelter at the same time.