President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

52%↑

48%↓

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
March 11, 2010 11:09 PM UTC

Colorado Citizens, Businesses Reject Amazon's Bullying

  • 26 Comments
  • by: Alan

(Related to this, in case you haven’t been paying attention – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Less than 48 hours into the effort, support is growing rapidly for ProgressNow Colorado’s call to boycott online retail giant Amazon following its decision to terminate relationships with affiliates in the state.

The public can sign the pledge to boycott Amazon here: http://progressnowcolorado.org…

The editorial board of the Aurora Sentinel writes in today’s edition (click here to read) that “a clearly punitive act by online retailer Amazon not only invites retribution from Colorado consumers, it practically demands it…it’s important for consumers to press back against Amazon for trying to bully their way into making more profit at your expense. Send Amazon an e-mail message telling them of your displeasure at their mean-spirited and politically motivated antics instead of an order, and take your wallet to an Aurora store instead.”

“After only one email alert to our list, thousands of Coloradans have pledged to shop elsewhere until Amazon stops using their business partners as political pawns,” said ProgressNow Colorado Executive Director Bobby Clark. “We’ve heard from individual citizens, angry ex-Amazon affiliates, elected officials, and local retailers, virtually all expressing their support.”

Anne in Fort Collins writes in response to ProgressNow’s call to boycott, “Amazon doesn’t want to follow the law and wants to strong-arm Colorado into backing off…sorry, Amazon–I would rather support local businesses than do business with a company that employs unfair tactics to compete.”

Tannis in Greeley replied, “I’ve been thinking I need to do a better job of supporting local businesses.  Thanks to your decision to protect your unfair advantage, I will be shopping at stores which actually benefit my community.”

Jim in Denver writes, “As a Denver retailer for the past 45 years, you bet I’ll support this campaign.  A level playing field is what I want to see.”

In addition to the thousands who have signed ProgressNow Colorado’s pledge to boycott Amazon, a broad cross-section of Colorado’s political leadership and business community have rallied in support of the Colorado legislature’s decision to pass House Bill 1193, which created the mechanism to collect the taxes already owed–and paid routinely–on purchases made every day online and offline.

In an open letter, Tattered Cover Bookstore general manager Matthew Miller writes that “unlike sales tax equity legislation in other states, which makes clear that an active network of in-state affiliates establishes nexus–and requires an out-of-state retailer to collect sales tax for online sales–our state’s law now merely asks these retailers to inform residents of the amount of use tax that they owe for online purchases. Amazon’s refusal to do even this clearly shows that it is only interested in maintaining its significant competitive advantage over the bricks-and-mortar retailers in the state–and that it is more than willing to use its online affiliates as pawns to do so.”

“The fact is, Amazon’s actions were capricious and arbitrary, and had nothing directly to do with the issue at hand,” continued ProgressNow’s Clark. “The sole intention of Amazon’s termination of these affiliates was to anger them, and goad the public into acting against the best interests of our state.

“From retailers to individual consumers to the state’s highest elected leaders, Colorado stands united to level the playing field between online sales and Main Street business, and ensure the vitality of our local economy and public institutions alike,” Clark said. “And we’re calling on everyone, from the Governor to the clerk at your local used bookstore and everybody in between, to put their money where their mouth is and show massive corporations like Amazon that we won’t be pushed around.”

Tweet
Share

Comments

26 thoughts on “Colorado Citizens, Businesses Reject Amazon’s Bullying”

        1. In fact, Colorado’s leg was more lenient than the other states by taking out the “affiliates” in the bill. The only reason amazon is doing this is because CA is considering similar legislation, and once CA passes it, Amazon is pretty much screwed nation wide and will have to start remitting the use tax to the states. The Affiliates are just a Red Herring.  

            1. Are you serous? This is Amazon, “the world’s largest online retailer,” that we’re talking about here, right? If Apple, WalMart, Barnes and Noble, and everyone else with a store in the state can figure it out, I’m pretty sure one of the eggheads at Amazon can figure it out, too.

              2. for Target transactions, which it handles on its site. And it started collecting tax on Amazon sales for New York state two years ago after New York passed a law requiring it to. It’s not a matter of whether Amazon can “figure it out,” it’s something different than that.  

                1. Although the Target sales my piggy-back on target’s system rather than be their own. But yes, Amazon can put this in place.

                  The place this is a killer is a couple of people starting an online business. Those people cannot do it.

                  As to why Amazon is fighting this, the fact that they can do it does not mean they want to go through the hassle of dealing with umpteen million taxing jurisdictions. It will cost them a lot of time and money.

            2. Does Amazon not know how to print and mail a letter?

              In addition, a reporting requirement is obviously less burdensome than requiring the collection of taxes.

          1. Really? You think online retailers like Amazon need this advantage over brick and mortar to effectively compete? Or is it time for the world’s largest online retailer to collect sales tax the same way that Apple.com, barnesandnoble.com, taret.com, walmart.com, and a whole host of other online stores with a physical presence in the state already do? How is it shooting themselves in the foot to level the playing field even just a little bit for local businesses that actually put money back into the Colorado economy? You really would rather some multinational conglomerate hold on to a bit more cash than Colorado get its fair share of revenue to build roads, fund schools, and (one of our biggest budget items) keep people in prison?

              1. The reporting requirement is directed at informing buyers of their obligation to pay use tax due, so it has everythting to do with Amazon.

                Our tax laws, particularly with respect to taxes that are subject to voluntary reporting (such as income and use taxes) rely heavily on information reporting (i.e., W-2s, 1099s, mortgage interest statements, etc.).  Use tax reporting is directly in that vein.

  3. if I use Amazon.com to get recommendations, and then write them down and take them to a local book store?  I suppose so; I’m giving them data, but not cash.

    Amazon’s recommendations really are too good to give up.

    2. And I’ll be doing it more with Amazon now.  I think it still counts as a boycott.

      I actually do this in both directions – “window shop” local stores (so I can actually see/touch what I’m considering ordering) and order online, and “window shop” (for reviews and user feedback) online and order locally.  

      Nothing beats your local vendor for service, and the ability to actually hold an item before purchasing it is invaluable for anything you’ll be using on a regular basis.

  4. For me boycotting would be rather ineffective.  I took down my wishlist and stopped buying from them a year ago when they did this thing with flagging all gay books as “adult”.  They fixed the problem, but I felt no strong urge to go back and their behavior since then, for example bullying Colorado, Print on Demand Publishers, and Macmillan, has only reinforced my perception that I’d rather do business with someone else.  

    Plus iTunes is so much easier than getting a physical disc mailed to me (when I cannot wait for it to show up in the used bins at Cheapo Discs) and they do pay their state and local taxes.

  6. … this controversy once again demonstrates the betrayal of working people by the Dimocrat Party. All regressive sales taxes should be abolished and a progressive state income tax with revenue sharing back to the counties and municipalities instituted. THAT is what Dimocrats should have stood for, but for them its politics as usual: stick it to both business and regular folks.

    “Why I Call Them Dimocrats”

    http://www.davechandler.info/2…

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

162 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!