In recent discussions, important insights from Jeff Bezos’ *Washington Post* articles, such as “Why you may not want lower prices as much as you think you do” and “Actually, today’s food prices are a bargain,” shed light on the broader implications of pricing strategies on consumers and businesses. Alongside these pieces, Stacy Mitchell’s comprehensive analysis underscores how Amazon’s practices are undermining local businesses, warranting a closer look at the situation.
Stacy Mitchell’s detailed exploration highlights alarming trends that have emerged as Amazon secures contracts with local governments, specifically in the education sector. These insights, including the findings from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR), reveal substantial challenges for local economies. Here are several key takeaways:
9. These independent suppliers often outperform Amazon: In a price comparison of 628 frequently purchased school items, an independent office supply dealer beat Amazon on 68% of them. And, unlike Amazon, these suppliers provide consistent next-day delivery & high level service. pic.twitter.com/wge8WTBuss
— Stacy Mitchell (@stacyfmitchell) December 4, 2025
12. The reality can be seen in the data: In Berkeley County, WV, the schools spent $1.3 million with Amazon — and only $142 went to in-state sellers. The vast majority of the district’s spending went to Amazon itself or to overseas vendors. pic.twitter.com/teioIXb4bF
— Stacy Mitchell (@stacyfmitchell) December 4, 2025
By Jake Johnson, a senior editor and staff writer for Common Dreams. Originally published at Common Dreams.
A recent investigation has brought to light that Amazon, the e-commerce giant, is exercising its market power and political connections to infiltrate local government purchasing systems. This strategy has led to contracts with school districts that enable the company to inflate prices on essential supplies like pens and sticky notes.
This report from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR), titled Turning Public Money Into Amazon’s Profits: The Hidden Cost of Ceding Government Procurement to a Monopoly Gatekeeper, draws upon purchasing records from nearly 130 cities, representing over 50 million Americans.
According to ILSR, “cities, counties, and school districts spent $2.2 billion with Amazon in 2023—a nearly fourfold increase since 2016.”
The report asserts, “Through its Amazon Business platform, the company has maneuvered to become the default source for office products, classroom materials, cleaning supplies, and other routine goods.” As a result, Amazon has embedded itself deeply within local governments and is beginning to influence state agencies and a new program for federal agencies designed to change procurement processes.
Unlike traditional government contracts with set prices, the agreements Amazon has established with local governments allow for “algorithm-driven pricing,” enabling the company to covertly increase prices and costs for public entities.
“The result is significant price disparities: one city purchased a 12-pack of Sharpie markers for $8.99, while a nearby district paid $28.63 for the same pack on the same day,” states ILSR. “Our data reveals thousands of similar instances, with some agencies paying two to three times more for identical items.”
1. Hard to believe, but Amazon has persuaded schools and cities across the country to abandon competitive bidding and fixed price contracts. Instead, they’re signing contracts with Amazon that specify dynamic pricing. The result: Paying $37 for 12 pens or $74 for 36 markers. pic.twitter.com/afIIkPucZL
— Stacy Mitchell (@stacyfmitchell) December 5, 2025
Overall, ILSR discovered that school districts that are locked into Amazon agreements spend double what districts without such contracts do per student.
“Public officials should be alarmed by our findings,” Stacy Mitchell, co-executive director of ILSR, stated. “Amazon is reshaping public procurement in ways that expose taxpayer funds to inefficiencies and risks. The company has convinced cities and schools to discard measures intended to guarantee fair pricing and accountability, driving out independent suppliers and diminishing competition.”
With expansive access to local government procurement processes, Amazon is progressively entering state and federal systems as well. ILSR noted that “Amazon dominates the General Services Administration’s Commercial Platforms Program, a new initiative for agencies making purchases below $15,000 that do not necessitate competitive bids.”
During the first two years of this program’s pilot phase, “Amazon accounted for 96% of sales,” the report found.
However, ILSR emphasizes that Amazon’s dominance can be reversed with determined efforts.
“Some cities and counties have acknowledged the risks of over-relying on Amazon and have taken steps to reclaim transparency while supporting local economies,” the report highlights. “Tempe, Arizona, for instance, rejected an Amazon group-purchasing contract after receiving feedback from a local business owner. Between 2017 and 2023, the city reduced its Amazon spending by 84%, simultaneously increasing purchases from local suppliers. Similarly, Phoenix has prioritized local bids and minimized its spending with Amazon over the last decade.”
Kennedy Smith, one of the report’s co-authors, remarked that “when local officials implement effective safeguards and prioritize local suppliers, they not only save money but also strengthen their economies and restore public oversight over taxpayer funds.”
To maintain integrity in local procurement systems and avoid the tactics used by Amazon to benefit from taxpayer money, ILSR recommends that state and local governments ban “dynamic pricing” in purchasing agreements and focus on sourcing from local businesses.
“By regaining control of public procurement, governments can protect public funds, boost local enterprises, and ensure that the goods vital to our schools and public services are procured through transparent, competitive, and democratic systems,” the organization concluded.
