Slashdot Mirror


White House Punts On Petition To Allow Tesla Direct Sales

First time accepted submitter neanderslob (1207704) writes Last Friday, over a year after the petition gained the required signatures for a response, the White House rejected a We the People petition to "Allow Tesla Motors to sell directly to consumers in all 50 states." The letter went on to defend the administration by citing their initiatives "in promoting vehicle efficiency." In response, Tesla is firing back, blasting the White House for a lack of leadership on the issue and stating "138,469 people signed the petition asking the White House to allow Tesla Motors to sell directly to consumers in all 50 states. More than a year later, at 7.30pm EST on Friday as most of America prepared for the weekend, the White House released its disappointing response to those people. Rather than seize an opportunity to promote innovation and support the first successful American car company to be started in more than a century, the White House issued a response that was even more timid than its rejection of a petition to begin construction of a Death Star." There's a legal issue here: the executive can't just wave state law aside. But they could suggest Congress write new laws instead of just noting that Congress would need to take action.

27 of 382 comments (clear)

  1. What? by just_another_sean · · Score: 5, Funny

    An internet petition that went nowhere? Unpossible!

    Seriously, the White House petition site is just PR. I'm no Obama hater but anyone who thinks that would ever be an effective way to influence policy is probably still sitting on the edge of their seat waiting for Firefly to come back on television.

    --
    Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    1. Re:What? by sunking2 · · Score: 5, Funny

      The Death Star proved that. Overwhelming support. Brushed under the rug. This administration is a joke.

    2. Re:What? by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 4, Informative

      Did you read the response? It's great.

      https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/isnt-petition-response-youre-looking

      "Why would we spend countless taxpayer dollars on a Death Star with a fundamental flaw that can be exploited by a one-man starship?"

    3. Re:What? by slashdice · · Score: 5, Funny
      Like...

      Dear Mr. President, Please play lots of golf.

      Dear Mr. President, You seem overworked. Please take another vacation.

      Dear Mr. President, Please give another speech calling Republicans meanies.

      --
      Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
    4. Re:What? by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But this would be the first time that a petition would actually demand that the USA federal government actually does what it is SUPPOSED to do, to force the USA government actually to apply the interstate commerce law correctly.... This is what the interstate commerce clause is meant for: use federal power to force States to stop anti-business practices that hurt businesses and people when States attempt to destroy competition by preventing businesses and people from engaging in interstate commerce. States are not supposed to be able to prevent businesses and individuals from competing with one another, that is the purpose of the federal interstate commerce law. Not to force people to buy products that they would not buy without government force applied to them by to prevent States from destroying free market capitalism, to prevent States from denying competition.

      Of-course forever now the federal government and States engaged in anti-competitive practices that they accuse businesses of, which in reality are the product of the government corruption and collusion. Mandating and requiring business licenses for people to engage in commerce is the anti-competitive practice that needs to be stopped. Mandating and requiring that businesses abide by government rules and regulations is the anti-competitive practice that needs to be stopped. Income taxes are not only a horrible economic policy, it is also a way to segregate businesses into those, that have access to government officials and those that cannot compete because they are not getting special treatment.

      Basically this petition is the first petition that I hear about that actually demands the USA government to behave Constitutionally where it concerns trade and business and individual freedoms. Of-course the government will pay 0 attention to it.

    5. Re:What? by sconeu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thank you. For once, this would be a legitimate use of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

      Clearly, this *is* the purview of Congress, not the President, but all that the White House needs to do to make the petitioners happy is have one of its pet Congresscritters introduce legislation.

      It seems to me that the state regulations banning such sales are an intrusion upon the prerogatives of Congress.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  2. For us dummies.... by AudioEfex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ....can someone briefly summarize like we are in third grade (OK, maybe junior high) why Tesla can't sell their vehicles anywhere they damn well please? I don't follow car news so I don't know (and I'm asking here because I figure I am not the only one).

    1. Re:For us dummies.... by Andrew+Sterian · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not an easy read but a good backgrounder on this, which also seems to be a Department of Justice advocation of direct manufacturer sales:

      http://www.justice.gov/atr/pub...

    2. Re:For us dummies.... by Raseri · · Score: 5, Informative

      Car dealerships form extremely powerful lobbies in most (all?) states, and have purchased laws in most (all?) states banning the direct sale of vehicles from the manufacturer to the consumer. This, obviously, is a protectionist racket that serves no purpose but to line the pockets of said dealers. I'm not aware of any other consumer good with such a restriction (though I will grant that such a thing is possible and I simply am not aware of it).

      --
      Writhe your naked ass to the mindless groove.
  3. Re:He cant or wont? by tysonedwards · · Score: 4, Informative

    As a country, the United States has not Declared War against anyone since World War II, it has however by Executive Order by the Commander in Chief gone to war with several countries.

    --
    Thirty four characters live here.
  4. Online petitions with consequences? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The problem with the petition is that it has no consequences.

    Would it help if petitioners agreed to vote *against* the incumbent president's party at the next election if the issue isn't addressed?

    Some of the petitions net upwards of a quarter-million signatures. Is that enough votes to get Washington to take notice?

  5. The real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The real reason that the dealerships care isn't about Tesla at all.

    Dealerships have worked to create laws that forbid car manufacturers from selling direct to consumers. And if Tesla gets around that, then Ford, GM, etc. will be hot on their tracks and dealerships will see significant impact from this. In the age of the internet anyone would become finally able to purchase goods from the car manufacturers. Their way of life would die off.

    That's why they fight Tesla like the fate of the world is at stake.

  6. Re:He cant or wont? by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Really, it doesn't matter when he or any other President did that.

    What really matters is that the ignorant fool of an AC believes that he should be able to do that. It should scare the shit out of everyone that even an AC would think that a President should be able to cast aside state laws with a mere wave of his hand or executive order. That's fucking dictator shit right there.

    People have thrown the Dictator charge around and it's been consider kookville, because there has always been some arguable legal construct supporting it. But for anyone to seriously suggest that a President has unilateral discretion over the laws of individual states is scary and should get everyone's attention.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  7. Not a duty of the Executive Branch by ravenscar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These White House petitions drive me a little nuts. I appreciate that they bring publicity to an issue, but they also demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US Government is designed to work. The issue is state and local laws. These laws don't contradict federal laws. What do people want the President to do about it? If people are upset about their local laws they need to work at the local level - petitioning state law makers.

    The argument could be made that this is interstate commerce. Great, then work with your national representatives to propose federal legislation that would overrule the local laws. It very likely would have to stand up to a court challenge, but the courts have been exceptionally liberal in their interpretation of interstate commerce. If the local governments fail to comply THEN the executive branch will get involved in enforcement.

    It seems like people want the Executive and Judicial branches making the laws. This isn't how it's supposed to happen - for good reason. This reflects not only a bad approach to government, but it is also a sign of just how completely broken Congress is. How said that the only ones who seem able to push any sort of legislation through Congress are big businesses. Everyone else is stuck looking for some sort of alternative. Sadly, those alternatives, should they end up successful, will just result in a less representative, more authoritarian government.

    1. Re:Not a duty of the Executive Branch by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 5, Informative

      Exactly. Congress has to write a law saying, "By Constitutional law, we are tasked to facilitate interstate commerce. This is impeding interstate commerce; therefor, the new law says: stop doing that." Then the President can point and say, "Go Go Federal Agents!" and any lawsuits raised by Tesla can get to the Federal Courts where the Judge is obligated to say, "Your state laws are in conflict with Federal regulations which are supported by powers Constitutionally granted to the Federal government, therefor the Federal regulations trump your State laws."

  8. Re:He cant or wont? by thaylin · · Score: 4, Informative

    It is actually interstate commerce which congress has a say in under the commerce clause. Also most states charge you sales tax via your EOY tax forms for out of state purchases.

    --
    When you cant win, ad hominem.
  9. No need to qualify by sjbe · · Score: 5, Informative

    Most states, prodded perhaps by dealer associations, have forbidden auto manufacturers from selling directly to the public.

    There is no "perhaps" about it. Auto dealer associations are entirely the reason - no need to qualify your statement. They are parasitic middlemen and they know they have a good deal going. They cost both customers and the automakers money. They should have to compete and provide value just like any other business. There should be no legal prohibition against me buying a car directly from Tesla, GM, Toyota or any other car maker if I want. If the dealer can provide me extra value then fine but if they cannot (and most cannot) then they should disappear like the obsolete businesses they are. There is no rational justification I have heard for protecting their business model at my expense. Perhaps you know of a good reason but frankly for me if auto dealers disappear tomorrow it won't be too soon.

    1. Re:No need to qualify by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most states, prodded perhaps by dealer associations, have forbidden auto manufacturers from selling directly to the public.

      There is no "perhaps" about it. Auto dealer associations are entirely the reason - no need to qualify your statement. They are parasitic middlemen and they know they have a good deal going. They cost both customers and the automakers money. They should have to compete and provide value just like any other business. There should be no legal prohibition against me buying a car directly from Tesla, GM, Toyota or any other car maker if I want. If the dealer can provide me extra value then fine but if they cannot (and most cannot) then they should disappear like the obsolete businesses they are. There is no rational justification I have heard for protecting their business model at my expense. Perhaps you know of a good reason but frankly for me if auto dealers disappear tomorrow it won't be too soon.

      Yup. It rather like being required to head to your nearest brick-and-mortar travel agency to book a flight and hotel and pay them their middleman fee, rather than going to united.com and tripadvisor,com (or whatever your preferred vendor is).

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  10. Re:He cant or wont? by IronOxen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That will ensure their success. Anything we declare war on thrives like never before.

  11. One legit use of the commerce clause by istartedi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well now, here's an actual legitimate use of the Commerce Clause; but Congress won't use it. Every podunk dealer that ever contributed to their campaigns would ring their phones off the hook, as well as actual corporate lobby from GM, etc.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  12. Move to Canada by diodeus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Move Tesla to Canada. The rules of NAFTA trump this local dealer baloney.

  13. Where are free market republicans? by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why is the government allowed to stop the guy from selling a legal product?

  14. Kit car by MouseR · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Tesla could sell the car as a kit where you order one or more of N components to complete the car.

    Eg, the car body, the batteries, the clip-on steering wheel.

  15. Re:the executive can't just wave state law aside?? by VorpalRodent · · Score: 4, Funny

    It took me a minute to parse this for context. I was grasping at straws for when Michael Jackson and/or the Jackson Five was giving orders to Diana Ross.

    --
    Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
  16. That worked for Clinton, only non-suck president by raymorris · · Score: 4, Informative

    The only president of the last twenty years who is generally considered to have been reasonably good is Clinton. What did Clinton do? Not much. Pretty much, he entered the White House during a time of economic growth and got a blowjob. For that (doing nothing) he's considered to be better than Bush Jr. or Obama. Before Clinton, George HW Bush wasn't bad and what did he do? Domestically, pretty much nothing. He was all foreign policy - START I, Noriega, beginning NAFTA.

    Obama's legacy probably would be better if he'd play even more golf, throw another blowout party, and stop messing with the country.

  17. Re:He cant or wont? by afidel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He should tell Congress that Tesla should be blocked from direct sales, that's the only way to ensure that a law allowing direct sales in all 50 states will be passed =)

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  18. Re:He cant or wont? by JavaLord · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... why can't he waive state laws?

    The last time the president did that, hundreds of thousands of Americans lost their lives in the resulting conflict.

    Presidents (and federal officials) can browbeat states into changing state law pretty easily by threatening to revoke federal funds.