Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tesla Faces Off Against Car Dealers In Another State: Ohio

Posted by timothy on from the most-politicians-deserve-to-be-electrified dept.

cartechboy writes "We've seen Tesla run into regulatory issues in Texas. And North Carolina. This time, it's Ohio, where car dealers are playing an entertainingly brazen brand of hardball. The Ohio Dealers Association is backing an anti-Tesla amendment to Ohio Senate Bill 137--which turns out to be an unrelated, uncontroversial proposal about drivers moving left when they see emergency vehicles (The bill is headed for adoption.) The sudden and subtle amendment would ban Tesla from selling its electric cars directly to customers, who place their orders online with the company after learning about the Model S in company-owned stores. A hearing on the amendment was suddenly scheduled for today; Tesla is fighting back by outlining the economic benefits to Ohio--after taking some legislators for a ride in the Model S (a Tesla tactic that has worked before)."

21 of 214 comments (clear)

  1. time to make the call by ion9 · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.ohiosenate.gov/senate/index Find your Senator and tell them what you think, not that it will do any good.

    1. Re:time to make the call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wonder how often when a bill comes to the attention of a legislator does he actually think, "what do I honestly think is the right thing to do here?" Do you think ever? Or is it 100% "hmmm, which side of this bill's backers is paying me more?"

    2. Re:time to make the call by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While Tesla direct sales are an example of the the type of practice this law intends to ban, it is not because of Tesla that they want this law enacted. It is the dealers protecting themselves from being cut out by their own car companies. For the near future, they could care less about Tesla specifically. Calling it Anti-Tesla is a bit "Tesla-centric", IMO. But it makes headlines, I guess.

  2. At least... by mythosaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...at least Texas' laws were a consequence of leftover monopoly laws preventing squeezing out car dealers.

    This is just plain old greed by bought-and-paid-for politicians working for their car-dealer sponsors.

    1. Re:At least... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Car dealerships practically own(and frequently are) local politicians, in a way mega-corporations wish they could do to the U.S. federal government. Being a local petty millionaire who can throw a "fund-raiser" is all it takes for the smaller offices.

    2. Re:At least... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not inherently wrong, I agree, but it is unconstitutional. Interstate trade is the exclusive regulatory domain of the feds.

    3. Re:At least... by faffod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can't leave the city I live in - not if I want to continue being a father for my children. Saying that it is easy to pick up and move is a fallacy for many if not most people.

    4. Re:At least... by LordLimecat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Incorrect, it is NOT exclusive. The fed has supremacy when it passes a law, but states CAN reach inter-state agreements about many things: liquor laws, metro finance agreements, etc.

      Virginia has reached agreements with Maryland and DC regarding who pays for Metro costs, how the metro runs, who regulates it, etc-- thats not an exclusively federal issue.

    5. Re:At least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Incorrect, it is NOT exclusive. The fed has supremacy when it passes a law, but states CAN reach inter-state agreements about many things: liquor laws, metro finance agreements, etc.

      Virginia has reached agreements with Maryland and DC regarding who pays for Metro costs, how the metro runs, who regulates it, etc-- thats not an exclusively federal issue.

      On many things, yes, but not all things. States can collaborate on certain things (or not) but the courts have always held that states cannot pass any laws that would in any way restrict commerce across state lines.

      So if the states of New York and New Jersey agree, for example, to impose a $100-per-unit sales tax on widgets, they can do this. Or if New Jersey decides to undercut New York's $100 tax by charging only $50, it can do this. But New York can't impose a $250 tax on widgets brought in from New Jersey while keeping its own tax rate at $100, because that would be, essentially, a tariff that restricted interstate commerce.

  3. Oh no! by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's a new business model, and it's coming right at us! Shoot it! Shoot it now! Don't check if it's friendly! SHOOOT IT!!!!

    1. Re:Oh no! by jratcliffe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Rarely do people of the same occupation gather together, even if only for merriment, that it does not end in some plot to defraud the public." I'm pretty sure that the large majority of people who cite Smith haven't actually _read_ Smith.

  4. How can Ohio even do this? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Tesla purchases are interstate commerce. Constitutionally and practically that's a matter of Federal jurisdiction.

    1. Re:How can Ohio even do this? by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Informative

      The commerce clause doesn't say that a state cannot regulate anything that has ever traveled in interstate commerce. Rather, it does two things (as relevant here).

      1. It prevents states from discriminating against out-of-state producers in favor of in-state producers. This is known as the "dormant commerce clause". So a state could not ban, say, the import of electric cars from out-of-state, while allowing in-state manufactures to produce and sell them them. But the state could completely ban the sale of electric cars within the state. The fact that someone wants to trade the cars in interstate commerce doesn't trump the state's right to regulate sales within its borders.

      2. In certain areas where the federal government has enacted a comprehensive regulatory scheme under the interstate commerce clause such that it intends to fully "occupy the field" to the exclusion of any state regulation of the subject, the federal preemption doctrine does preempt any state laws. This might be closer to what you're thinking of. But it applies only in specific cases, where the federal government has actually explicitly preempted states' authority with a comprehensive regulatory scheme.

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
  5. So much for capitalism by digitalPhant0m · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What a shame it is that our country operates in this manner.
    Regardless of which or both parties are to blame it's the publics complacency in allowing our elected leaders to behave this way.

    This is supposed to be a capitalist democracy. There is supposedly a free market.

    Wave goodbye to innovation when you can no longer bring it to market because it is more lucrative to stifle it.

  6. Why don't we name and shame? by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why is it that the people who schedule these underhanded surprise hearings go unnamed? People need to know that these guys are working for special interests in back-room deals.

    --
    "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
  7. Great! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now only 48 more articles on this topic.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  8. Sounds familiar by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here in B.C. we had a stink a few years ago over privately imported vehicles from Japan. Under Canadian law you can privately import anything you like if it's over 15 years old, and in the mid-noughties a lot of interesting vehicles started to turn 15. Since they are essentially worthless in Japan, but well looked-after, they're a bargain for anybody who wants a used car. Japan has made a major industry of exporting their used cars. Unlike many other jurisdictions, cars with the steering wheel on the "wrong" side are road-legal here.

    The car dealers threw a fit. They claimed that right-hand drive vehicles were the enemy of all that is free and right and holy, but were never to adequately explain why. I wondered why they were concerned about their ability to compete with 15 year old used cars. Again, they were never able to adequately explain why.

    It's died down. For now. But you never know what they're going to try next.

    I bought a 1992 Mitsubishi L300 Delica in 2007. I love it. A touch expensive to run, but ridiculously practical and it will go anywhere with shift-on-the-fly 4WD. It also has a delightfully quirky style.

    ...laura

  9. NC governor's test drive killed an anti-Tesla by TimHunter · · Score: 4, Informative
    Tesla arranged for NC governor McCrory to test-drive a Tesla. http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/06/10/2953779/dome-tesla-lobbyists-give-mccrory.html

    McCrory hopped in for a ride, with a state trooper behind the wheel. Before long, McCrory and the trooper switched, giving the Governor a chance to guide the sleek vehicle around Raleigh.

    It worked. http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/tesla-model-s-scores-big-win-in-north-carolina-in-battle-over-business-practices/

  10. Ignorance by s.petry · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think you should read up on the Libertarian movement, because they don't want to "move everything to the state level" as you falsely claim. Don't come back with some wacko and claim that's the movement ideology.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  11. Re:Why? by Copid · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why do states wish to entrench a specific business model or exclude someone from it?

    Because while it's expensive to buy US Senators and other high profile offices, it's pretty cheap to buy state legislators--well within the grasp of one of the district's wealthier entrepenurs. Like a guy who owns a major car dealership.

    --
    An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
  12. Re:Honest politicians hard at work by torkus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's just it...if you make it a law then it's legal. Then you challenge the law and get it overturned...then they write a new one permitting whatever was used to overturn the old one ad infinitum until you get a constitutional challenge which this won't rise to.

    I agree though it's a brazen, monopolistic power grab by the dealers. Remind you of the MPAA and RIAA? Their business model gets challenged by...reality and life...so they fight for laws and sue sue sue. All to the detriment of their customers.

    I can see why they're bent out of shape...they're used to a locked in business model that basically guarantees profits. Unfortunately buying votes indirectly is still ridiculously easy as is adding things to unrelated bills about to be passed into law. I can only see that trend getting worse...here's a bill to explicitly outlaw shooting infants in a stand your ground state. Rider to it also prohibits you from selling books not approved by the writers guild. Just you wait...

    --
    You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.