This has been getting my goat for 10 years.
According to Publisher's Weekly today, Amazon. com dropped all their Colorado "Associates" because the state passed legislation requiring internet retailers to collect local sales tax.
The Amazon "Associates" program is the very clever system in which anyone can post book titles on their websites which click through to Amazon where a sale is made. The Associate will receive a very generous sales commission (5% and sometimes more) for the transaction. This program drives considerable sales to Amazon and also builds good will, strengthens the brand, and creates loyal customers. And it raises a lot of money for the Amazon Associates with very little effort. Many of the most effective Associates are non-profits and PTA's that raise considerable money for schools and other worthy causes through this program.
So to all those PTA's, to all those local chorale societies, to all those homeless advocacy groups and orphanages, Amazon is saying –"if Colorado is going to make us collect sales taxes, then Colorado, FUC….," ok I better not say it, but you get the picture.
The issue here is all about Amazon's vigorous and consistent opposition to collecting local sales tax which allows them to maintain a competitive advantage over local booksellers. I've made a number of blog posts on this subject in the past.
Let's back up a little bit. I realize that ranting about the Supreme Court position on tax venues pursuant to the Commerce Clause of the Constitution might deaden the senses of my blog fans who have gotten used to my snarky and satirical commentaries on the foibles of commercial publishing. But I'll keep it simple. In 1992 in the decision of Quill vs. North Dakota, the Supreme Court ruled that under the Commerce Clause, absent federal legislation, a state could not regulate the collection of sales tax by an out of state corporation that had no physical connection to the state in which the buyer resided. Even though the decision was handed down before internet retailing existed, it continues to be the law today.
I'm proud of the fact that I have been fighting this abomination for years. Back in 2000, a group of independent booksellers in the Bay Area that included myself, Bill Petrocelli of Book Passage and the local independent booksellers association, began a campaign to end these anti-competitive and illegal practices. We actually got a bill passed through the state legislature in spite of spirited opposition from Amazon, Barnes and Noble and the entire high tech industry. Even though it received unanimous support from the Democrats in the legislature, it was later vetoed by the venal then Governor Gray Davis (also known as "Governor Ka..ching") , a shameless sop to his fat cat Silicon Valley funders.
On the federal level, an organization was formed to influence similar legislation in Congress. The money for the organization mostly came from big commercial real estate interests and mega- retailers like Wal-mart. It wouldn't make a lot of sense having a Wal-mart executive make the case for tax fairness for community based mom and pop businesses, so they enlisted me as the public voice of the organization. As the Arabs have said: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." I was sent to Washington to debate the extremely evil anti-tax nut, Grover Norquist, at the Federalist Society. The check for my expenses came from Wal-mart. There. That is my dirty little secret. Tell my enemies if you must.
I also was featured on PBS's Crossfire where I was grilled by Mary Matalin and accused of being a liberal stalking horse who, whenever I saw something new and good (the internet), I wanted to tax it. I'm proud I whipped the asses of these guys in debate. I even got Grover Norquist to start spitting in fury when I equated his position on tax policy with John Calhoun's argument for nullification (ok, that was a pretentious cheap shot and misdirected but a memorable event to tell my grandchildren).
I even got into an argument with former governor (and hopefully future governor), Jerry Brown, then mayor of Oakland. He said all I wanted to do was tax the internet. I responded in my most patronizing tone, that of course the mayor understood that the issue was not taxing but requiring collection of tax. Unlike Norquist, Brown appreciated a worthy opponent. He made me sit next to him for the rest of the event and engaged me in conversation about his passionate interest in the thought of Jürgen Habermas and other German philosophers. After that, I decided that Brown was wrong on tax policy, but otherwise ok.
This was back in 2001 when the country was gripped with internet frenzy. The high-tech lackies were hyping the New Economy with the most shameless humbuggery imaginable. In the course of debate, I heard more than once that the internet was the most important invention since the wheel. I responded that it was considerably less important than the invention of the plumber, particularly when your toilet was overflowing.
So why did we argue that this was illegal. After all, according to the Supreme Court in Quill, out of state companies didn't have to collect sales tax. Well, fair enough. But the Court had also ruled in a number of cases, that even the most tenuous physical connection to a state could trigger the requirement to collect taxes. Even a commission sales rep wandering into the state occasionally was enough to create the necessary connection to the state. Well, what was different about the existence of tens of thousands of Amazon Associates in a state actively driving sales to the internet retailer in exchange for generous commissions? How was this different from a commission rep? You don't have to be Antonin Scalia to answer that question. The was no difference.
This whole theory was devised by Bill Petrocelli. Of course, back in 2001 we were the only people arguing it. And, of course, we were just a couple of Luddite mom and pop retailers fighting the juggernaut of the inexorable Hegelian dialectic of history with our sling shots.
Come the collapse of the economy in 2008. The states start looking for more ways to collect taxes. And Bill's theory becomes extremely attractive. New York passed a law to begin collection and now Colorado. Of course, if Amazon dumps its affiliates, then their connection to the state disappears and Amazon doesn't have to collect. Amazon maintains its unfair tax break. Schools and services pay for it by getting less tax dollars; and the PTA's lose a valuable source of funds.
I end this blog by paraphrasing the unforgettable words of Joseph Welch as he destroyed what was left of Senator Joseph McCarthy's reputation in the Army-McCarthy Hearings:
Jeff Bezos, "have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"