The National Association of Attorneys General will host its Summer Meeting in Seattle June 21-24. As NAAG’s president, Washington Attorney General Christine Gregoire has been asked to use her influence to intervene and encourage the nineteen state attorneys general who are suing Microsoft to drop the antitrust case.
The nineteen states involved in the lawsuit are: New York (lead), California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
In a letter to Gregoire, Evergreen Freedom Foundation president Bob Williams asks her to "please do all you can to end the litigation. This lawsuit is hurting consumers and really hurting taxpayers. "
Gregoire has stated previously, "I don’t believe I have a legal basis to join the action. I see no detriment to the consumer here caused by the conduct of Microsoft."
Taxpayers so far have spent $35 million prosecuting the antitrust case. This year’s ruling against Microsoft cost them even more when it negatively impacted the entire NASDAQ market and caused a $1.7 trillion loss in value. 80 million Microsoft shareholders nationwide were hurt when market value dropped.
Citizens of Washington state, who own 40% of Microsoft’s shares, bore the brunt of it with a loss of more than $70 billion in stock value. Particularly hard-hit are retirees who don’t have time to wait out the market while their monthly expenses continue to add up.
State pension systems, which invest in the stock market to fund retirement programs, have also suffered. In the nineteen states where attorneys general are pursuing the lawsuit, the value of state pension systems for retirees dropped nearly $40 billion after the ruling was made.
The actions of the Attorneys General directly involved have cost their own states billions of dollars.
"How does this ruling benefit consumers?" asks Williams. "Bill Gates and Microsoft will survive this unfair attack, but what about the small investors and retirees who have taken a major hit thanks to the legal vultures out to destroy Microsoft?"
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"