AbstractDrawing on an original dataset of Delaware Caremark decisions from 1996 to 2024, this article reframes the corporate purpose debate by focusing on directors' oversight duties rather than conventional business judgment cases. It reveals a paradox: Delaware judges espouse shareholder primacy rhetoric; however, they allow Caremark claims to proceed more than twice as often when misconduct causes severe physical or mental harm to stakeholders than when it results in pure financial loss to investors. This pattern, the article argues, reflects a form of “Democratic Capitalism” in which courts filter evolving social values through a shareholder framework, protecting stakeholders when their welfare is tightly linked to long‐term firm value. By shifting the lens through which we assess corporate purpose, this article clarifies how Delaware law balances shareholder primacy with stakeholder welfare and provides fresh guidance for boards, litigants, and scholars. This article also challenges the claim that Caremark enforcement is partisan. Through a hand‐coded analysis of judicial political affiliation, it becomes clear that Republican and Democratic judges apply the doctrine with striking uniformity. Ultimately, this analysis invites a reassessment of Delaware's doctrinal understanding, revealing a more nuanced judicial posture in how Delaware courts operationalize corporate purpose in practice.