We knew the debate was coming, and now here it is: How much should the cap on damages be for oil companies involved in an oil spill?

Here’s what is a brief summary of the schools of thoughts, via The Clarion-Ledger:

One proposal from Democratic Sens. Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Ben Nelson of Florida would increase the cap to $10 billion.

Menendez said the Senate needs to “stand up to big oil companies and make them pay for their own mess.”

The other proposal, from Republican Sens. David Vitter of Louisiana and Jeff Sessions of Alabama, would increase the cap to an amount equal to a company’s last four quarters of profits or $150 million, whichever is greater. House Republicans plan to introduce a companion bill.

Supporters said that measure differentiates between large companies like BP, which operated the well now gushing oil into the Gulf, and smaller companies that would be crippled by a cap in the billions.

“The smaller operator would be run out of business,” Republican Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi said. “It’s important … to make sure the market isn’t completely dominated by these gigantic oil companies and countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.”

Granted, concern for smaller oil companies should be taken into consideration. It’s often smaller companies who are more nimble, efficient and faster that drive innovation in an industry.

At the same time, the size of the company does not in any way relate to the damage that is done when a rig explodes and oil is dumped into the ocean. If the rig causing the devastation in the Gulf had been owned and operated by a much smaller company, the damage would still be the same.

Why, then, should larger companies be held to a higher standard or smaller companies to a smaller standard? Should not the standard be based not on the size of the company but on the cost to clean up such a disaster?

What Sens. Wicker, Vitter and Sessions advocate is protectionism for corporations, first, and the welfare of our property and our people second.

That’s not to say the $10 billion cap is the magic number, but a unilateral approach related to the cost of clean-up seems much fairer to the people, the states and the planet than does the protectionism of a sliding scale based on company profits.