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.

12 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 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.
    3. 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.

  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. 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.

  4. 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.
  5. 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.

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

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

  7. 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"?
  8. Move to Canada by diodeus · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

  9. 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."