Shareholders tend to be unhappy with "We were fined for doing this, and so we kept doing it and now owe another fine."
Also, exec bodies/courts/juries tend to be more skeptical of an ignorance defense if a company was literally fined for doing that exact thing previously.
If the fine is $ABC, and that fine never changes, but profits grow from $ABC x3 to $ABC x10, shareholders will actually get mad that the corporation doesn't continue the activity in question because there's net profit growth.
Sadly, sometimes the cost of quelling an FCC or SEC violation charge is simple "lobbying".
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/the-supreme-court-...
(The Supreme Court declined to hear the case)
“We were fined $20 million for something that makes us $200 million” is a no brainer choice to a shareholder.
And the probability of getting that fine imposed is far less than 1.
https://www.npr.org/2024/04/01/1197963517/dupont-chemours-ch...
Only if the fine exceeds what they made. Otherwise, shareholders tend to more side with the "try to keep that shit on the down low next time eh?" approach when they're still making money.
Yes, it stops them from doing that exact same thing again while incentivizing the general behavior of intentionally breaking laws until told to stop.