AFTON, Iowa — Though some have questioned the influence that Grover Norquist’s anti-tax pledge holds over the GOP, a leading Republican senator left no doubts of its influence at a recent town hall.

An Iowa constituent asked Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) on Tuesday about closing a loophole that allows online companies like Amazon to skirt paying sales taxes. Though Grassley declined to take a firm position on the issue, he explained to the man how Norquist’s influence blocks Congress from closing that loophole. “It may not be a tax increase because the states already have the taxes, but there are people in Washington who define what a tax increase is and they seem to have a lot of political power,” Grassley said, implicitly referring to Norquist. “They’ve gotten people not willing to go out and want to be labeled as a tax-increaser even if they aren’t increasing taxes.” Watch it:

Despite Norquist’s influence, some Republicans are joining Democrats and trying to close the Amazon loophole. Currently, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) and a bipartisan group of 56 members of Congress are sponsoring the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013, which would allow states to collect sales taxes on online purchases.

Conservatives in Italy — a country that was neither colonized by Great Britain nor staged a massive civil disobedience campaign centered on hot beverages — are trying to form their own “Tea Party,” using Grover Norquist’s anti-tax pledge as a central organizing tool. US News & World Report has more:

A group called Tea Party Italia, inspired by the tea party movement in the U.S. and by Norquist’s pledge, created a similar taxpayer contract it is pushing ahead of the country’s general election next month. The pledge says politicians won’t raise taxes and will work to reduce the country’s debt, which the Associated Press reports hit a record $2.64 trillion in December.

But getting politicians to sign on to the pledge might prove more of a challenge.

“Candidates in the U.S. want to sign this pledge because they have to do a difficult and hard campaign,” he says. Italian candidates, on the other hand, are chosen by the party and don’t go through a campaign season. “So it’s very difficult to find [politicians] that believe in our ideas in Italy.”

Norquist penned a letter to the group earlier this month endorsing the “Italian taxpayer protection pledge,” a move that could make it significantly more difficult for the country to retire it’s $2.6 trillion debt. Conservatives in other countries, from Japan to Israel, have tried to emulate similar tactics as well.

One reason why Norquist may be looking overseas for support is that his power is waning back home. Norquist’s pledge contributed to dozens of GOP losses in 2012 and Republicans subsequently abandoned him in droves during the fiscal cliff negotiations.

After an eleventh-hour deal to avert the so-called fiscal cliff, Republicans are already looking forward to the next manufactured crisis: the debt ceiling fight. Though raising the debt ceiling was considered a routine order of business in the past, radical Republicans took the nation to the brink of credit default for the first time in history, refusing to raise the debt ceiling if Democrats did not agree to devastating spending cuts.

The US hit its debt limit again on New Year’s Eve 2012, and House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) seems ready to gamble with US credit again. As the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore reports, the Speaker may try to avoid a sustainable deal over the debt ceiling, instead increasing the limit little by little. This would result in another debt ceiling fight every month:

I ask Mr. Boehner if he will take the debt-ceiling talks to the brink—risking a government shutdown and debt downgrade from the credit agencies—given that it didn’t work in 2011 and President Obama has said he won’t bargain on the matter.

The debt bill is “one point of leverage,” Mr. Boehner says, but he also hedges, noting that it is “not the ultimate leverage.” He says that Republicans won’t back down from the so-called Boehner rule: that every dollar of raising the debt ceiling will require one dollar of spending cuts over the next 10 years. Rather than forcing a deal, the insistence may result in a series of monthly debt-ceiling increases.

Most Americans want to avoid another debt ceiling fight like the 2011 debacle, which led to an unprecedented downgrade of US credit, an all-time low approval rating for Congress, and cost taxpayers $18.9 billion. But Boehner is taking his cues from anti-tax activist Grover Norquist, who floated the idea of a monthly debt ceiling increase as a way to extort more spending cuts from Democrats. Norquist’s strict pledge to never raise taxes, which most Republicans have signed, was the main cause of the crisis in 2011. Other Republicans seem eager to replicate the experience, including newcomer Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who encouraged his colleagues to aim for another government shutdown.

If Boehner takes Norquist’s advice and institutes a regular debt ceiling battle, he may fulfill his own warning in 2011, when he predicted a global “financial disaster” if the US did not raise the debt ceiling.

Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform announced Wednesday that Speaker John Boehner’s (R-OH) proposed “Plan B” to extend expiring tax cuts on the first $1 million in annual income would not really be a “tax increase,” and thus would not violate the ironclad oath nearly all Congressional Republicans have taken to never vote to raise taxes. In so doing, the group effectively also conceded that President Obama’s proposed extension of tax cuts for the first $250,000 of income would also not violate the Norquist pledge.

Throughout the presidential campaign and the recent fiscal negotiations, President Obama’s proposal has been clear: extend tax cuts on the first $250,000 in annual income and allow the rates on income above that amount to be taxed at the Clinton-era rates. While a few Republican lawmakers have embraced a plan that passed the Senate and has strong Democratic support in the House to do just that, many have been reluctant.

A key reason was their fealty to Norquist and the pledge; in an interview with ThinkProgress on Tuesday, Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) demonstrated in 67 seconds how that pledge outweighs other considerations.

In the past, ATR has attacked the Obama’s tax cut proposal as a “small business tax hike..” In July 2011, it warned “ATR opposes all tax increases on the American people. Any failure to extend or make permanent the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, in whole or in part, would clearly increase taxes on the American people.” Norquist attacked pledge-signers who expressed a willingness to let rates go up as having “impure thoughts” and suggested that extending only some of the tax cuts would not pass the “laugh test.”

But today, the group conceded that Boehner’s approach — and therefore Obama’s — would not really violate his pledge. They said:

This legislation—popularly known as “Plan B”–permanently prevents a tax increase on families making less than $1 million per year. Republicans supporting this bill are this week affirming to their constituents in writing that this bill—the sole purpose of which is to prevent tax increases—is consistent with the pledge they made to them. In ATR’s analysis, it is extremely difficult—if not impossible—to fault these Republicans’ assertion.

In particular, in this Congress the House has already voted twice to prevent any tax increases on any American. When viewed with this in mind, and considering this tax bill contains no tax increases of any kind — in fact, it permanently prevents them — matters become more clear. Having finally seen actual legislation in writing, ATR is now able to make its determination about a legislative proposal related to the fiscal cliff. ATR will not consider a vote for this measure a violation of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.

But while the amounts in the Boehner proposal and the Democratic plan differ, if the Boehner proposal is neither a “tax increase” nor a violation of the anti-tax oath, the same would have to be true of the Obama plan.

WASHINGTON, DC — If one doubted the power of lobbyist Grover Norquist’s anti-tax pledge, Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) provided a sterling example Tuesday.

ThinkProgress spoke with the Georgia Republican today on Capitol Hill about the fiscal cliff negotiations. When we asked about a possible deal that let tax cuts for the wealthy expire, Gingrey was initially open to the idea: “I hate to make a commitment on anything.” He didn’t want to rule anything out before consulting with constituents in his district.

But once reminded that he had signed a pledge to never raise taxes, Gingrey abruptly shifted his position and re-iterated that he would abide by the Norquist pledge when it came time to vote. “I don’t take that pledge lightly, so I won’t say that I don’t feel bound by it.”

KEYES: Do you think you could accept anything that lets the tax cuts expire for the top 1 or 2 % of folks?

GINGREY: I want to wait and see what’s presented to me. I hate to make a commitment on anything. The people of my district probably don’t know about this last offer. I want to hear from them first. I’ll be doing a lot of calling over the next few days into the district.

KEYES: You wouldn’t feel bound, for instance, by the Norquist pledge to never raise taxes at any point?

GINGREY: Well, uh, up until this current second, I’ve felt very much bound by that pledge I made in 2002. I don’t take that pledge lightly, so I won’t say that I don’t feel bound by it.

KEYES: So still on board with the pledge then?

GINGREY: Pretty much on board with the pledge!

Listen to it:

Though some in the media have opined that Norquist’s pledge doesn’t actually hold any sway because Republicans all oppose taxes anyway, this episode shows how the pledge affects their ability to compromise. Un-pledged, Gingrey is a man who might be willing to deal in good faith. Pledged, he has virtually no option but to adhere to Norquist’s strict parameters.

During an appearance on Meet The Press Sunday morning, Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) repeatedly dodged host David Gregory’s questions on whether or not he would be willing to accept increases on the wealthiest Americans’ tax rates in a deal to prevent the nation from going over the so-called “fiscal cliff.”

Instead, Corker referred to his own recently-proposed plan to raise revenue through closing tax loopholes. When pressed by Gregory on whether this would be the only revenue source that he would consider in a deal, he replied that revenues through capping deductions and eliminating loopholes would be a more “pro-growth” approach, but conspicuously did not rule out a rate hike on wealthier Americans’ marginal tax rates:

CORKER: Look, Speaker Boehner and Leader McConnell both have put revenues on the table.

DAVID GREGORY (HOST): Let’s just understand. Everybody in Washington says revenues. There’s increasing your tax rates and there’s finding other ways to raise tax revenue. And the distinction is important, because what republicans object to is raising your tax rates — Your actual marginal tax rates. That’s the distinction that you have to answer, right?

CORKER: Well, you can get there two ways. One of the ways is the way I proposed, which is closing loopholes. That’s a pro-growth way of getting more revenues from wealthy Americans. And I think, David, before this is all over with, there’s lots of machinations. There’s capital gains, dividends. And I think cooler heads will prevail. And I think we will resolve this. And that’s the very best thing we can do to get our economy going.

Republicans have been generally vague in outlining an acceptable compromise on Americans’ tax rates.

But an increasing number of GOP lawmakers have been backing away from absolutist dogma on increasing the wealthiest Americans’ tax rates in a deal with President Obama. Recently, prominent GOP senators such as Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) have signaled that they are open to increasing taxes in order to avert the “fiscal cliff.”

Last week, Corker also backed away from anti-tax purist Grover Norquist’s pledge to not raise taxes under any circumstances, asserting, “I am not obligated on the pledge.”

This post will be updated to reflect the growing defections.

Every day, more Republicans in Congress are backing away from Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquit’s anti-tax pledge. For more than 20 years, the pledge, which stipulates that those who sign will never — under any circumstance — vote to raise taxes while in Congress, has virtually been a requirement for Congressional Republicans. According to ATR, just 16 of the 234 House Republicans and 6 of the 45 Senate Republicans that comprise the 113th Congress did not sign the pledge.

However, the pledge may not have the staying power it once did. As of this writing, more than two dozen House Republicans — including Majority Leader Eric Cantor — and 11 GOP senators have distanced themselves from the pledge to one degree or another. Here are just a few examples or what members had to say:

— Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH): “The only pledge that keeps me up at night is the pledge I owe to the people of New Hampshire and our country to work as hard as I can to make sure America doesn’t go bankrupt.”

– Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA): “I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge . . . I don’t worry about that because I care too much about my country. I care a lot more about it than I do Grover Norquist.”

– Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN): “Well, I’m not obligated on the pledge. I made Tennesseans aware, I was just elected, that the only thing I’m honoring is the oath I take when I’m sworn in this January.”

– Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA): “When I go to the constituents, it’s not about that pledge. It’s about trying to solve problems.”

– Rep. Peter King (R-NY): “A pledge is good at the time you sign it . . . In 1941, I would have voted to declare war on Japan. But each Congress is a new Congress. And I don’t think you can have a rule that you’re never going to raise taxes or that you’re never going to lower taxes. I don’t want to rule anything out.”

– Rep. Timothy Johnson (R-IL): “I would never in a million years have considered this as some kind of a locked-in-granite pledge. Frankly, I didn’t even remember it. That shows you how obscure it was to me.”

Other Senators that have signed the pledge and distanced themselves from Norquist include Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE), Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). House Republicans also jumping ship include: Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), Rep. Chris Gibson (R-NY), Rep. Reid Ribble (R-WI), Rep. Tom Latham (R-IA), Rep. Rick Crawford (R-AR), Rep. Pat Meehan (R-PA), Rep. Jon Runyan (R-NJ), Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE), Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA), Rep. Charlie Bass (R-NH), Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK), Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID), Rep. John Kline (R-MN), Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN), Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-MN), Rep. Adrian Smith (R-NE), Rep. Scott Rigell (R-VA), Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY), Rep. Allen West (R-FL), Rep. Robert Dold (R-IL), Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC), Rep. John Campbell (R-CA), Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-TN), Rep. Adrian Smith (R-NE), Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-CA), Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH), Rep. Dan Webster (R-FL), Rep. Tom Rooney (R-FL), Rep. Bill Young (R-FL), Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA), Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), Rep. Ander Crenshaw (R-FL).

– Greg Noth

Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) yesterday said that Republicans should embrace President Obama’s offer to extend the Bush tax cuts on income below $250,000 immediately, arguing that to do so would not violate Grover Norquist’s anti-tax pledge that so many Republicans have signed. “I don’t see that as a violation of my pledge,” Cole said, noting that “Republicans would be voting to lower [taxes] for most folks and do nothing — which would result in an increase — for the rest.”

Indeed, the pledge — which Norquist uses as a cudgel to cow any Republican who strays from his no-tax-increase line — is based on current law, so only extending some of the Bush tax cuts still counts as a tax reduction and doesn’t violate the pledge. Norquist himself admitted as much last year:

According to Mr. Norquist’s interpretation of the Americans for Tax Reform pledge, lawmakers have the technical leeway to bring in as much as $4 trillion in new tax revenue — the cost of extending President George W. Bush’s tax cuts for another decade — without being accused of breaking their promise. “Not continuing a tax cut is not technically a tax increase,” Mr. Norquist told us. So it doesn’t violate the pledge? “We wouldn’t hold it that way,” he said.

This interpretation makes sense, because if it weren’t true, then voting for any temporary tax cut would technically violate the pledge, as doing so would mean voting for a tax increase at some point in the future, as conservative writer Kevin Glass noted. Citizens for Tax Justice agreed: “Rep. Cole is correct because the Bush tax cuts are temporary tax cuts that are specifically written to expire at a certain date. Any extension of part of those tax cuts is a new tax cut that reduces revenue, and is ‘scored’ by the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office as a revenue loss.”

Other Republicans have hinted that they think the same way as Cole. “I don’t intend to violate any pledge,” said Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA). “What we’re faced with in just a few weeks is a massive tax increase. If I can help ensure that we don’t have that tax increase, then I believe I’ve fulfilled my pledge to fight for the lowest possible taxes.”

Last year, Norquist tried to muddle his statement, while never quite denying that allowing tax cuts to expire is in accordance with the pledge. Norquist’s organization, Americans for Tax Reform, confirmed the same thing when questioned by ThinkProgress.