A far-reaching online privacy bill that got next-to-no vetting or legislative debate was

Assembly Bill 375 – the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 – would change the playing field in the relationship between users of some online services and the companies that provide the services. It would allow users to ask companies to delete their personal information and to be informed what information about them that the companies were collecting and selling. It would also allow online consumers to sue over some unauthorized breaches of their information – but only for up to $750.

The San Francisco developer who reportedly spent more than $3 million to gather signatures for his ballot measure told the Sacramento Bee that AB375 – while not as far-reaching as his proposal – was more than good enough. Alastair Mactaggart said he was willing to compromise and gain “certainty” of online privacy reforms rather than take on tech giants in a heavy spending free-for-all in the fall election. He pulled his initiative after AB375 was signed by Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday afternoon – just before the deadline for its possible withdrawal with the Secretary of State’s Office. Brown’s signing came after the bill won unanimous approval from both the Assembly and Senate.

The process under which a measure that qualified for the ballot could be pulled if proponents were satisfied with the Legislature’s alternative was established in a 2014 state law that was billed as an important refinement to the state’s system of direct democracy. The bill was championed by then-Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento.

The most important differences between Mactaggart’s proposal and AB375 is that it gives tech companies more certainty of their own that there would be legal limits on their exposure to damage claims from those using their services.

The bill quickly made it to Brown’s desk despite warning from key players.

Tech lobbyist: At least ‘even worse’ measure is dead

The Internet Association, a lobbying group for tech firms with significant online presence, issued a statement decrying “many problematic provisions” in the bill and “the unprecedented lack of debate or full legislative process.” But the association said it would not “obstruct or block AB375 … because it prevents the even worse ballot initiative from becoming law in California.”

The state Senate Judiciary Committee, which approved AB375 on Tuesday, did so even though chairwoman Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, expressed “grave, grave concerns about this legislation” to the San Francisco Chronicle. But she also praised its consumer-friendly elements, which take effect in 2020.

While California, as the nation’s largest and wealthiest state, often finds its policies emulated by other states, it’s not clear if AB375 will be copied in other capitals. Companies like Google, Amazon, Comcast and AT&T have steadily increased lobbying and campaign contributions in many states and may try to get what they consider model online privacy legislation passed elsewhere – so it could in theory compete with California’s version.

However, Facebook voiced its support for the state bill. “While not perfect, we support AB375 and look forward to working with policymakers on an approach that protects consumers and promotes responsible innovation,” a Facebook official told the Sacramento Bee.

While it hasn’t got nearly the attention, the same tensions between wealthy tech employers and local interest groups – which see the employers as hurting quality of life by increasing congestion and by making housing costlier – are playing out in the June 5 San Francisco mayor’s race. It’s being held to fill the vacancy created by Mayor Ed Lee’s death from a heart attack on Dec. 12. Lee’s death was lamented by tech executives who called him a key to San Francisco’s emergence as a world tech capital.

That sentiment is far from universal. A May 15 Business Insider analysis by Melia Robinson that was featured on the San Francisco Chronicle website was headlined “San Francisco is fed up with Big Tech, and residents are begging the next mayor to do something about it.”

Leading mayoral candidates critical of tech’s effects

It’s difficult to be confident who’s leading the mayor’s race since San Francisco is one of a handful of cities to use a top-three ranked voting system in which a candidate who doesn’t get a majority in the initial tally can still win based on her or his second- and third-place votes. But the consensus top three are all liberal to very liberal Democrats by national, if not San Francisco, standards. They are Board of Supervisors Chairwoman London Breed, who would be the city’s first African-American woman mayor and has the support of former Mayor Willie Brown’s business-friendly coalition; Supervisor Jane Kim, who would be the city’s first Korean-American mayor and is a mostly beloved figure among local progressives; and former state Sen. Mark Leno, who would be the city’s first openly gay mayor and who also runs well to Breed’s left.

Breed, who was deposed as acting mayor by progressive supervisors earlier this year, seems to want the most limited policy changes aimed at tech workers. She has backed limits on short-term rentals by companies like Airbnb and wants to cap the number of ride-hailing vehicles at any given time, and perhaps put restrictions on food deliveries as well.

Kim wants tech companies to improve pay and benefits for lower-rung workers so they can live in the city. She says companies subcontract services for janitorial and cafeteria work so they can avoid responsibility for the poor quality of life for those hired. She has expressed interest in requiring Uber and Lyft to pay a per-rider fee.

Leno wants to impose hiring rules on city tech companies to force them to hire city residents. He says this hiring shouldn’t just be for blue-collar positions but for administrative and sales jobs. He has also called for tech firms and their employers to “invest” in the city by committing to improving its lifestyle for those beyond the wealthy.

Some warn tech firms shouldn’t be taken for granted

The only Republican in the race – business consultant Richie Greenberg – and business groups say that mayoral candidates shouldn’t take tech companies for granted. They note that the city’s tech boom may have peaked in 2016, with exploding housing costs hurting San Francisco more than the broader Bay Area-Silicon Valley tech region in general.

But this point of view is a tough sell going into June 5’s voting. Perhaps the best example of this is a deal orchestrated in 2011 by then-Mayor Lee with the support of Supervisor Kim to revitalize the rough Tenderloin and Mid-Market districts west of downtown by giving a six-year break on city payroll taxes to companies located there. This was meant to keep Twitter’s headquarters from moving out of the city and to attract new tech firms to the area.

The proposal was widely seen as a smart way to maintain San Francisco’s tech momentum in 2011. In 2014, business groups hailed the agreement for keeping Twitter and for creating 13,000 jobs and generating much more revenue for the city than the sums lost because of the tax break.

But that same year, a San Francisco Chronicle analysis noted that the deal was seen by many residents as a sign of the city caving to business pressure – and it has emerged as a reason for progressives to question Kim’s bona fides.

Amid ongoing controversy over the economic impact of California’s thick regulatory environment, its leading space pioneers continued to notch new successes, underscoring the potential value of orbital and interplanetary technology to more earthbound challenges and opportunities.

Off the Pacific coast, a SpaceX capsule successfully returned to Elon Musk’s company cutting-edge research samples developed above the skies. “The pressurized capsule carrying about two tons of science projects splashed down in the Pacific Ocean off Baja California on Sunday after a five-hour free-fall from the International Space Station,” the San Jose Mercury News reported.

“Human stem cells were included in the Dragon cargo. It’s very difficult to expand stem cells on Earth but, in space, microgravity is believed to allow for accelerated expansion – which could improve treatment of stroke victims and others. Among other research, scientists looked at why microgravity causes wounds to heal more slowly, how it impacts muscle contraction, and how future antibiotic-resistant bacteria may mutate.”

Meanwhile, in Palm Springs, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos joined other industry leaders in giving the latest tech with potential space applications a spin. He climbed into a “14-foot-tall Method-2 robot, developed at Hankook Mirae Technology’s lab near Seoul in South Korea” and unveiled at an exclusive conference presented by Amazon, MARS 2017, according to GeekWire. “To create the 1.5-ton monstrosity, Hankook Mirae’s engineers worked with Hollywood robot designer Vitaly Bulgarov, who has been involved in mech-monster movie franchises such as Transformers, RoboCop and Terminator.”

From Earth to Mars?

In a bit of quintessentially Silicon Valley humor, Bezos tweeted an image of himself inside the mech with the #MARS2017 hashtag, raising speculation that he might sense an opportunity to link up massive exoskeletal technology with his own spacefaring program, Blue Origin. “Method-2 is controlled by a pilot who sits inside a cockpit in the robot’s torso, as Bezos demonstrates in the picture he tweeted.”

At the event, the Bezos-led firm let Americans gain a peek at one of its other leading-edge initiatives – a delivery drone – tested in England rather than California due to a smoother regulatory path. “The drone demonstration suggests that Amazon is making progress in its Prime Air development effort. When the service goes commercial, it’s expected to deliver packages in 30 minutes or less, using flying robots that can travel up to 50 mph,” GeekWire added separately. “It shouldn’t be a surprise that Amazon is providing a sneak peek at its delivery drones at MARS 2017. Amazon is presenting the semi-secret conference this week to show off technologies in Machine learning, home Automation, Robotics and Space exploration for a select audience.”

Rocketeering

Bezos has joined Musk in pushing for greater and faster human space travel, methodically building and testing increasingly powerful engines capable of propelling rockets beyond Earth’s gravitational pull – and back. Blue Origin “has the suborbital New Shepherd, and engineers are working on the heavy-lifter New Glenn, an orbital vehicle that’s scheduled to fly for the first time by 2020,” as Space.com noted. “This same incrementalist philosophy will also apply to crewed flights, which will begin aboard New Shepard. (Blue Origin also intends to launch people to orbital space eventually, Bezos has said.)”

Musk has already announced that, pending preemption by a NASA crew, several private citizens have ponied up for a personal flight extending past the moon’s orbit. “Musk says the trip is scheduled to happen in late 2018 and if he and his company manage to pull it off, it will be the first time in 45 years that humans will venture that deep into space,” ABC San Francisco recalled. “They’ve not yet been identified, but two people have put down significant deposits for a trip around the moon. Musk says they will fly faster and farther into the solar system than anyone before them.”

Tempting fate — and mobilized outrage from consumers and their Silicon Valley allies — municipalities around California have zeroed in on a new source of revenue: Online film and television streaming services, and the people who use them.

“If the cities are successful in adjusting their existing utility users taxes — and there are questions surrounding the legality of such a move — viewers could be forced to pay as much as 10 percent more to stream Netflix’s ‘Orange is the New Black’ or Amazon Prime’s ‘The Man In the High Castle,'” the San Jose Mercury News reported. 

“Cities from Richmond to Redwood City to Watsonville are looking at adopting a streaming video tax. Alameda, Albany, Emeryville, Gilroy, Hayward, Hercules, Menlo Park, Los Altos, Newark and San Leandro have ordinances that could be tweaked to allow them to tax video streaming without a fresh round of voter approvals.”

The temptation has quickly spread from the city of Pasadena, where local officials have already succeeded in slapping the levy on residents. “Pasadena was among the first to say publicly this fall that it wanted to tax video streaming services like Netflix, a step that could make up for lost tax revenue from growing numbers of cord-cutters,” the New York Times recalled. “The move in Pasadena, with a population of about 140,000, has drawn consternation from technology companies and consumers who worry that it could be copied across the state.”

In fact, some tax defenders have construed its legality around a rule passed years ago under different auspices. “Pasadena voters modernized a law in 2008 to tax cell phones like landlines, never anticipating it could be applied to video streaming,” according to CBS. “Forty California cities now have similar laws.”

National nerves

And though the federal government doesn’t permit internet taxation, big cities outside California have muscled in onto the potentially lucrative source of cash too. Results, however, have been mixed. “Pennsylvania’s charging a 6 percent sales tax on everything, from apps to downloads, to help close a $1.3 billion budget gap,” the network added. Chicago, meanwhile, “is currently being sued for charging a 9 percent tax on video streaming.”

Critics have warned bites like that add up. The taxes “may show no signs of stopping, considering streaming music, podcasts, video games and other technology is constantly being developed,” The Drum observed. “Paul Verna, an eMarketer analyst, said that a larger debate could erupt when people start seeing their bills if those smaller channels are continuously added.”

For its part, Netflix threw up a red flag. Spokesperson Anne Marie Squeo told the Los Angeles Times it was “a dangerous precedent to start taxing Internet apps and websites using laws intended for utilities like water and electricity. It is especially concerning when these taxes are applied to consumers without consent and in a manner that likely violates federal and state law.”

Shifting business

And now, in the midst of the controversy, Netflix has moved aggressively to court customers with a significant new feature adopted by its rivals: offline streaming. “Netflix signaled in recent months it would add an offline viewing option to better compete as the streaming video market becomes more and more crowded,” Reuters reported. “Amazon.com Inc’s rival streaming video service, Prime Video, has had this option for about a year.”

The company’s domestic customer base has stalled, but foreign audiences have swelled, a trend that could be exacerbated if American cities flock toward taxation. “Growth among U.S. subscribers has slowed in 2016,” the wire continued. “Netflix added just 370,000 subscribers during the third quarter and only 4.3 million since the third quarter of last year, suggesting they are reaching a saturation point.”

“In that same time frame, Netflix has added 13.2 million international subscribers, including 3.2 million in the third quarter. Much of that has to do with Netflix’s expansion by more than 130 countries earlier this year to over 190 nations currently.”

Deflating anxiety

“Drone technology certainly raises novel issues that merit careful examination. This bill, however, while well-intentioned, could expose the occasional hobbyist and the FAA-approved commercial user alike to burdensome litigation and new causes of action,” Brown noted in his veto statement, as the Los Angeles Times reported.

Amateur drone enthusiasts have recently taken heat for interfering with emergency responders and posing a hazard to air traffic. But a recent study conducted by hobbyists’ advocacy group the Academy of Model Aeronautics challenged that blanket judgment. “Hobbyists who scrutinized reports to the FAA of alleged close calls with drones found that pilots reported near misses in only a small fraction of the cases,” as USA Today reported. “The study found that of the 764 close-call incidents between drones and other aircraft, only 27 were actually described by pilots as a ‘near miss,'” with pilots taking evasive action just 10 times.

The governor also cautioned that the legislation’s height restriction would criminalize drone use “whether or not anyone’s privacy was violated by the flight,” the Orange County Register observed.

State Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, took the defeat stoically. “I am obviously disappointed that the governor vetoed my drone privacy legislation, but pleased the bill launched an important discussion on our privacy and private property rights and drones,” she said in a post to Facebook, according to Wired.

Industry advocates, on the other hand, showed little restraint in hailing the move. “Brendan Schulman, the vice president of policy and legal affairs for drone maker DJI, called the veto ‘a huge victory for drone innovation,'” Wired added.

Big implications

Fearing a slippery slope, prominent names in news media also jumped into the fray, warning Brown of insurmountable difficulties if he signed the bill into law. “The groups, including professional organizations like the Society of Professional Journalists and outlets like CNN and the parent company of the Los Angeles Times, said in a letter Thursday to Gov. Jerry Brown that this restriction will make it incredibly difficult for reporters to use drones for newsgathering purposes,” The Hill reported. The would-be hurdles threatened “the public’s right to receive news,” the letter cautioned, especially during the early moments of breaking news coverage.

Although Brown’s decision was also seen as a big win for companies like Amazon and Google, which are poised to incorporate drones into their businesses, neither of those tech titans have come forward with comment. Significant questions remain as to how they could proceed with possible innovations like drone delivery of packages under current FAA regulations.

Legal uncertainty

The government agency recently turned its attention to laying out strictures that could govern a more drone-heavy future. “The Federal Aviation Administration has proposed rules for commercial drones that would restrict flights to below 500 feet,” as the Wall Street Journal reported. “Above that level is generally reserved for manned aircraft. Under those rules, the bill would have left commercial drone users just a 150-foot ribbon of airspace over much of the state. If companies wanted to fly lower, they would have needed to get permission from dozens of landowners for some flights, which could be a logistical nightmare.”

Brown’s decision increased the likelihood that Washington, D.C., would move faster than Sacramento in getting new rules and guidelines through. “The Federal Aviation Administration is moving toward finalizing rules for drone use, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration is leading stakeholder discussions to develop best practices for using drones,” The Hill observed.

In the meanwhile, according to the Journal, the FAA has insisted that its regulations preempt state law, a stance that likely tees up judicial intervention. Some 17 states have passed laws of their own setting limits on drone use.

By JOHN SEILER

Amazon.com didn’t waste time in working to repeal the so-called “Amazon” tax. The tax was passed last month by the Democratic-controlled Legislature and signed into law by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown. The tax is supposed to raise $200 million a year.

But Republicans, in particular Board of Equalization member George Runner, pointed out that the tax would kill thousands of businesses, which then would stop paying income, sales, property and other taxes. Effectively, it’s a negative tax — destroying more revenue than it brings in.

In my article on the Amazon tax — which is what Democratic staffers in the Capitol call it, even though it also affects many more companies — I wrote about my friend Gary Metz, an Amazon affiliate. Along with 10,000 other affiliates, after the tax was imposed Amazon “fired” him. Another 15,000 affiliates were “fired” by out-of-state companies other than Amazon.

Metz just forwarded to me the letter Amazon is sending fired affiliates like him. It reads (boldface in original):

Comment on California Jobs Referendum from Paul Misener, vice president, Amazon Global Public Policy

This is a referendum on jobs and investment in California. We support this referendum against the recent sales tax legislation because, with unemployment at well over 11 percent, Californians deserve a voice and a choice about jobs, investment and the state’s economic future.

At a time when businesses are leaving California, it is important to enact policies that attract and encourage business, not drive it away. Amazon looks forward to working again with tens of thousands of small business affiliates in California that were harmed by the new law’s effect on hundreds of out-of-state retailers.

As Governor Brown has made clear, it is important to directly involve the citizens of California in key issues and we believe that Californians will want to vote to protect small business and keep jobs in the state.

Amazon’s Strategy

Amazon obviously is not a dumb company. It’s being polite toward Gov. Jerry Brown, even though he has attacked the company.

Amazon is located in Washington State, where initiatives and referendums also are common, and decide major issues. So Amazon knows how the process works — although California’s process, of course, is a little different from Washington’s.

Amazon has a ready-made anti-tax constituency: those 10,000 fired affiliates. It has their emails. It easily could get their testimonies for TV ads boosting an initiative.

Moreover, Amazon knows that the whole country, even California, is in a foul, anti-government, anti-tax mood. Governments at all levels — federal, state and local — are badly managed, have spent and borrowed way too much, and now are seeking to put the thumb screws to taxpayers once again.

It’s true that, in California in November 2010, that anti-government, anti-tax sentiment was severely diluted. The Tea Party anti-tax movement hardly made a wave here. Democrats, after the election, said California’s “firewall” stopped the Tea Partiers at the state border.

But eight months is a long time in American politics. Last November, anti-tax activists here were handicapped because the sitting Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, had increased taxes. And the Republican candidate to replace him, Meg Whitman, ran one of the worst campaigns ever.

All that’s in the past. Arnold has become an object of ridicule for treating his marriage vows as seriously as he did his vows to Californians that he never would raise taxes. His 2009 tax increases were supposed to solve the state’s perennial budget shortfall. They didn’t.

And this year, unlike in 2009 when four members defected to the pro-tax side, Republicans in the Legislature stood solid against tax increases. Where Arnold could seduce some of them to stray, Jerry Brown couldn’t.

Next Year

The Associated Press reported on Amazon’s plans for next year:

A petition for a referendum was filed Friday with the state Attorney General’s Office so that voters can decide on the requirement, which was included in a state budget signed into law in late June.

Supporters must now gather around 434,000 signatures to qualify it for the ballot, according to the state Attorney General. A vote could occur during the next statewide election in June 2012.

The big battle will be between Amazon and the big-box stores that favored the Amazon tax, especially Walmart and Target. The big-box stores say that it’s unfair for Amazon to avoid the California state sales tax, effectively giving Amazon an 8 percentage-point advantage in pricing.

But these big-box stores themselves manipulate the government. They sometimes use eminent domain and redevelopment to get sweetheart property deals. And I remember how Walmart, a decade ago, manipulated the Huntington Beach City Council to get a 75-year lease on an unused school property — which included a clause that Walmart could opt out any time it wanted, but the city and school district were locked in.

And Walmart complains when unions manipulate the government to stop new openings of Walmart stores because the company mostly is not unionized. But when it comes to using California’s government to clobber an out-of-state rival, Walmart is all for that.

Amazon’s TV ads for the initiative no doubt will feature victimized affiliates. They’ll be Mom and Pop types whose livelihoods were destroyed by Gov. Brown’s new tax.

Walmart and the other big-box stores will fund ad campaigns talking about “fairness” and how state needs the tax money to fund schools, roads, police, firemen, etc.

This is a tough one to call. About two-thirds of statewide initiatives fail in California. But I think this one likely will win because there’s been a lot of buzz on the issue. Here at CalWatchDog.com, our articles on the Amazon tax have gotten a record number of comments from readers.

Even though most people aren’t affiliates, millions of Californians do buy from Amazon, and like the company. And today’s anti-tax mood will be even stronger next year.

Finally, if Amazon really wanted to play hardball, it could start a movement to recall Gov. Brown. Put that on a June ballot with an Amazon tax cut, and the fireworks really would begin.

recall

The “Amazon” tax imposed Gov. Jerry “Jobs Killer” Brown and the Democratic Legislature, at the behest of the government unions that control them, already is killing scores of California businesses. Reports Jan Norman of the Orange County Register:

Thousands of small-business owners — not to mention schools and nonprofits — are scrambling to figure out how much revenue they’ll lose as hundreds of online retailers cancel their affiliate programs in response to California’s new Internet sales tax law.

Note that it isn’t really Amazon that’s being hurt here, even though everybody calls it the “Amazon tax,” including Democratic staffers I talked to in the Legislature. It’s the little Mom and Pop stores that are being destroyed.

Killing Charities

Also note that charities also are hurt. Your local soup kitchen might put up a link on its Web site to some products on Amazon. When folks buy those products, the soup kitchen gets an affiliate commission. Now, they won’t get that money.

So, the poor will have to depend even more on government, adding another expense to the state budget.

Norman also provides the best description I’ve seen of how things work with these little affiliates — the Mom and Pops and the charities “Jobs Killer” Brown destroyed:

Here’s how it works: Let’s say you are a California resident with a website. You don’t even sell anything online. But you sign up to be an affiliate of  a retailer and put a  link to that retailer’s e-commerce site on your own website.

If a visitor to your site clicks on that link and buys something, the retailer pays you a small commission.

If the online retailer has a physical presence in California — such as Walmart or Target, which have been supporters of the new law — it must charge California sales tax from California buyers.

But many of these online retailers have no physical presence (stores, warehouses, headquarters etc.) in California. And they have not been collecting California sales tax.

Understand that retailers don’t pay sales tax. They collect it for the state or local government entity.

So, let’s say your little Mom and Pop book review site links its reviews to the books sold on Amazon. The purchaser might be in Massachusetts. And the book bought might be shipped from Nevada. The actual physical object — the book — never even comes to California.

But because the Mom and Pop store is located in Taxifornia, and electrons pass into and out of their business computer, that’s considered a “nexus,” that is, a physical presence of Amazon — or some other store — in California. How absurd.

Norman cites a couple of victims:

Tom Messick, owner of employeemall.com in Yorba Linda, provides employee discount programs for hundreds of companies nationwide. He has affiliate relationships with 300 companies that pay him a commission when employees use their products or services, such as yoga. He estimates the revenue is about 25 percent of his business.

Amazon is not one of the companies Messick is affiliated with. But to date, 15 of these companies have terminated their affiliate programs with Messick and other California firms “and the notices are coming in on a daily basis,” he said.

Amazon wasn’t even a player in “Jobs Killer” Brown’s attack on Messick’s business.

“It’s not so much the loss of revenue,” Messick said. “What bother me is having a competitive disadvantage with companies in other states that provide employee discounts.”

SurfMyAds.com in Santa Monica will be hit even harder. The company operates an international network of shopping sites such as PromotionalCodes.com, CouponWinner.com, myShoes.com and Coupons.ca. Affiliate commissions are the company’s primary source of revenue.

“So far we have received termination notifications from just over 100 of our merchant partners,” said Alexis Caldwell, director of affiliate and partner marketing. “However, we expect this number to increase over the coming weeks as more merchants receive word from their legal teams that they must sever their ties with California affiliates.”

Ebates in San Francisco is another online shopping site that has an active affiliates program. It has received more than 60 termination notices from online retailers. “We will see what the impacts are on our business over the coming weeks,” said Ebates official Rob Smahl. “If we cannot restructure our working relationships with the retailers who terminated their affiliate programs, then we will consider all options as necessary up to moving out of state.”

Loren Bendele, CEO at Savings.com in Los Angeles, said, “Essentially this is a California small business tax, so ultimately it hurts businesses like ours. When Illinois passed this law, all the major players in our industry moved out of the state. I’m afraid this will have a similar impact on California and cause the tech industry to migrate to other states.”

‘Nexus’ Absurdity

It’s also absurd for “Jobs Killer” Brown and the Democrats and unions to believe the Amazon tax will bring in $200 million a year. It’ll easily kill that much more in tax revenue the Mom and Pops used to pay in income, sales and property taxes. But we probably won’t have real data on the cost until next year.

And keep this in mind the next time “Jobs Killer” Brown, the Democrats and the unions say we need higher taxes to help the poor. But they just killed the affiliate program money that private charities used to help the poor.

July 10, 2011

You’ve probably heard of Stockholm Syndrome, where hostage victims end up identifying with the hostage takers. Here’s Wikipedia’s definition:

In psychology, Stockholm syndrome is a term used to describe a real paradoxical psychologicalphenomenon wherein hostages express empathy and have positive feelings towards their captors; sometimes to the point of defending them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors as an act of kindness.^[1][2] The FBI’s Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly 27% of victims show evidence of Stockholm syndrome.^[3

There’s also what I call “Government Stockholm Syndrome,” where victims of government abuse end up identifying with the government abusers.

That’s what’s happening with the “Amazon Tax” imposed Thursday by Gov. Jerry “Jobs Killer” Brown.

To avoid being forced to pay an unfair tax, Amazon.com “fired” its small, California affiliates, about 10,000 of them. Including other out-of-state businesses, about 25,000 California affiliates have been fired in the last two days. We’ve written about this recently here on CalWatchDog.com.

But some of the affiliates destroyed by “Jobs Killer” Brown, instead of blaming him and the rest of the government, blame Amazon! See what I mean: Government Stockholm Syndrome.

Here are a couple of these folks suffering from the Syndrome.

The L.A. Times reported:

However, another Amazon affiliate, Glenn Richards, an independent recording artist in Orange County (MightyFleissRadio.com), is angry with Amazon and its head Jeff Bezos.

“I think that Amazon.com’s decision to throw their affiliates, (including myself) under the bus is a national disgrace,” Richards said. “Jeff Bezos should be ashamed of his conduct. His bully boy practice and tactics of extinguishing small business in California should be (condemned). Small business has no power…and no hope to confront Internet giants like Amazon.com.”

The San Francisco Chronicle reported:

Former Chronicle business reporter Dan Fost is an Amazon associate. “Meaning I have an Amazon ad on my Web site, and if anyone clicks through to buy my book, I get a little share,” said Fost, author most recently of “Giants Past & Present,” about our favorite baseball team.

“I barely make anything on this, but I presume others do very well.”

Fost, who also received a notice Wednesday, said he was “intrigued that Amazon is threatening to take that away from me and other associates if the Brown tax passes.”

“I don’t see the connection at all – they’d rather not make the sales from our sites if they have to pay tax on those sales? I think they’re just trying to punish Californians for whatever the governor and Legislature do.”

July 1, 2011