<i>“We opposed this new tax law because it is unconstitutional and counterproductive,” Amazon said in a letter to its Connecticut affiliates. “It was supported by big-box retailers, most of which are based outside Connecticut, that seek to harm the affiliate advertising programs of their competitors. Similar legislation in other states has led to job and income losses, and little, if any, new tax revenue.”</i><p>First, "drop dead" is not mentioned by Amazon anywhere. The article title looks a lot like linkbait. Not upvoted. It also looks to pander to a political viewpoint.<p>Second, as far as I can tell, if you wanted to find the real political story here (since this is a story with both tech and political overtones) is that the big box retailers are looking to put the squeeze on their competition, and using government to do so. Yes, states are in dire straits, and yes, there are good arguments on both sides of the issue. But -- follow the money. Who stands to gain from higher-priced internet goods? Who stands to lose? Remember that, as an internet user, I'm free to purchase offshore as well. The big box guys know that. They know that the states will not receive one-tenth the amount they dream of. They're just happy to be throwing rocks in Amazon's way -- and using the government to do so.<p>I remember many years back when Microsoft had to start paying for lobbyists in D.C. The big buzz in the tech community was confusion: why would a company that made computer programs need lobbyists?<p>Of course now the answer to that question is all too clear: just like every other industry, some players played fast and loose with the rules, government intervened, and suddenly everybody had their checkbooks out to keep from getting squashed (and to squash the other guys as much as possible.)