Grover Norquist and Lawmakers Hold Rally Against Marketplace Fairness Act

Earlier in the week while the National Governors Association and proponents of the Marketplace Fairness Act were hosting an event to encourage House members to approve the bill already passed the Senate, Republicans from the House and Senate joined Grover Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform to rally against it. Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) joined House Republicans and Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform on Tuesday to rally against the bill. The Marketplace Fairness Act would require that Internet sales be subject to the same state taxes that brick-and-mortar retailers have to pay. The bill has yet to be taken up by the House Judiciary Committee and already faces strong opposition from Republicans who took a pledge not to raise taxes.

Others attending the event include Heritage Action for America Chief Executive Officer Mike Needham; Campaign for Liberty President John Tate; National Taxpayers Union Executive Vice President Pete Sepp; WE R HERE Coalition Executive Director Phil Bond; and Reps. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.), John Fleming (R-La.), and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.).

“Our hope is to build enough opposition in the House that it won’t go anywhere,” Alee Lockman, a spokeswoman for Rep. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), who organized the event told Politico.

Senator Cruz told reporters that lobbyists like the National Retail Federation helped rush the bill through the Senate.

“The reason it has passed — and it passed with a significant margin in the Senate —is because we have a lot of very powerful lobbyists in D.C. who are supporting this bill,” Cruz said. “What we are seeing in this bill is Washington ganging up with the giant corporations — you’re seeing Democrats and Republicans arm in arm with the giant corporations.”

Clearly Republicans afraid of what will happen if they break their pledge to raise taxes through this bill are afraid of crossing swords with Norquist and his group. For that reason the bill will have an uphill battle in the House when a vote is finally scheduled on the floor of the House…

Source: Politico

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    Technogeek says:

    I don't know how likely it is that anyone will read this given the age of the post, but as far as your specific example goes, most states that have a sales tax don't apply it to groceries. (Others do, but at a reduced rate; for example, Virginia has a 5% sales tax, which is reduced to 2.5% for groceries.)

  2. 0
    Flamespeak says:

    This boils down to whether or not a sales tax should exist then. Frankly, no it should not, especially when essentials such as food and water are taxed as well.

    Any time there is a tax with no tangible benefit or a clear cut reason except to earn gains, then it should be abolished as no form of government should have any kind of interest in profit. There can be a case made that property taxes are used to help fund schools, police, etc., but milking a sales tax out of people is not a healthy tax to take at all because it punishes everyone. Barely able to make ends meet to the point you are having to rely on the ol' ramen noodle diet, however, since you make minimum wage full time you can't get government assistance? Gonna charge you a tax for those noodles.

    I can even forgive taxes on gasoline because said tax should go to the upkeep of roads and bridges and what-not, but to be fair, if you charge a tax on gasoline, then you shouldn't get charged a tax on your vehicle because if that vehicle has not moved, then it isn't using gas and therefore it isn't causing wear and tear on the roads.

    Taxes on the whole are a tricky business and should really be examined. I do know one thing for sure, if people had a tangible benefit for paying taxes (and by people I mean everyone instead of just children, the infirmed, or the financially impoverished), then attitudes toward taxes wouldn't be as negative as they are.

  3. 0
    Technogeek says:

    Because it's not the site that has to pay taxes any more than the gas station is the one paying sales tax when you buy something.

    This is all about taxes that the actual residents of the states are, as the laws are currently written, supposed to be paying already. The fact that the majority of the population is ignoring the laws may be cause to question how a state's taxation system is structured (for example, is it better to drop sales taxes entirely and instead focus on property and/or business taxes as a means of raising revenue for the state), but that doesn't make the laws any less, well, law.

  4. 0
    Flamespeak says:

    I fail to see why an internet site should be charged for taxes when they consume no real resources from the state that would be charging them taxes the bulk of the time.

  5. 0
    MechaTama31 says:

    That still doesn't change what Neeneko was getting at, which is (I think) that "<insert disliked group here> supports <insert controversial measure here>" does not bring anything meaningful to the discussion.  It has nothing to do with the actual merits of the measure in question, it is just trying to turn people's negative feelings towards that group into negative feelings towards the measure.

  6. 0
    Neeneko says:

    Wait.. so 'giant' corporations, the ones that have the infrastructure to benefit the most from the current system, are somehow pressuring congress to pass laws that would increase their tax burden?

    Last I checked it was groups supporting small businesses and state governments that were eager for this bill, esp when it floated the more standard '30M in revenue' requirement for kicking in.

    It is fair to debate the implementation, merits, and philosophical underpinnings of a bill like this, but I can not stand this 'think of the children' type garbage, which is all the 'corporations lobby Washington' line is at this point.

Leave a Reply