Michigan About To Ban Tesla Sales

cartechboy writes It's a story we've come to see quite often: a state trying to ban Tesla's direct sales model. It seems something sneaky just happened in Michigan where Tesla sales are about to be banned. Bill HB 5606 originally intended to offer added protection to franchised dealers and consumers from price gouging by carmakers, and was passed by the Michigan House in September without any anti-Tesla language. However, once it hit the Senate wording was changed that might imply the legality of a manufacturer-owned dealership was removed. The modified bill was passed unanimously by the Senate on October 2, and then sent back to the House that day where it passed with only a single dissenting vote. The bill was modified without any opportunity for public comment. Michigan Governor Rick Snyder has less than a week to sign the bill into law. Of course, Tesla's already fighting this legislation.

Comments

Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[The New Guy 2.0]

Telsa... you're being banned state by state, what's wrong?

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[aristotle-dude]

Telsa... you're being banned state by state, what's wrong?

They are not giving out big fat bribes to the right people.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[JeffAtl]

That's not really how a constitutional republic works. A simple majority doesn't always get to make the rules.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[publiclurker]

Don't you mean the majority of the lobbyists?

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Mysticalfruit]

Odd, because it seems to be going the other way... State by state Telsa is challenging the antiquated archaic franchising laws and winning. Michigan doesn't surprise me.... I can only imagine the lobbyist money that flowed from Detroit to make this happen...

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[tlhIngan]

Telsa... you're being banned state by state, what's wrong?

They're too successful, that's what. Mess with the Big Three and you're bound to run into trouble.

Sorta kinda like Tucker.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

You way over estimate the cost of doing this. It is almost comical how everyone equates it to money. Its about connections. Half the time it is near free and takes half a day from some (very well connected) partner at a law firm. The lawyers of the car companies just ask to insert a sentence and then their client can keep paying them the big bucks.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[MildlyTangy]

Telsa... you're being banned state by state, what's wrong?

Thats a very very good question. What is wrong here? Look at everywhere else in the world. ONLY in the US do these batshit crazy weird laws against carmakers selling cars to consumers exist.

Its one of the strangest laws you guys have. Its akin to banning HP from selling computers to consumers, or banning Mc Donalds from selling Big Macs directly to consumers. It makes absolutely no logical or ethical sense whatsoever. Not in the slightest.

Whats wrong?

Seriously. What is going on here?

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[NoImNotNineVolt]

So that's why Chris Tucker's net worth is negative $11.5M? I thought it was tax issues...

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[emaname]

Spot on!!! Excellent observation.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[whyAreAllNicksTaken]

Except their trouble isn't coming from the Big Three. It's coming from the independent dealers who already have the Big Three under their collective thumb and want Tesla there too.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[x0ra]

This has nothing to do about Democracy, it is just car dealer lobbyist having a stronger voice (and bigger overall wallet) than Tesla.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

Telsa...

Who is this "Telsa" you speak of?

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Ralph Wiggam]

Do you have any evidence that anyone was bribed in this case?

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[JeffAtl]

The laws made sense in the era that they were created. Times have changed though and the laws are still on the books.

Now they've become very similar to the archaic alcohol sales related laws that are still present in most states.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[poetmatt]

Look at the existing franchise laws and how they are being used. It's not really a question that bribes are occurring, it's what lobbying is by it's very definition.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Forgefather]

It's a trend in our lawmakers that make them so sensitive to being anti anything that they come up with weird circuitous laws to ban things that they don't like or have donations to eliminate.

In this case lawmakers were attempting to protect small mom and pop style dealerships from the Detroit auto industries shady business practices, but I bet they didn't want to seem "anti capitalism" for regulating the pricing of cars to ensure that the dealers weren't dumping cars to drive out the competition. So instead we get a crazy law that bans direct sales. Because its much harder to construe that as anti something, and the politicians can always fire back with a similar "anti mom and pop stores" nonsense.

For a more modern example look at abortion laws. In my great state the politicians are too afraid to go one way or the other so they come up with bullshit like waiting times. In order for a woman to get an abortion she has to wait three days. No reason. She just has to. This is because someone couldn't get an anti abortion law passed so they settled for attempting to shame the woman into keeping the child with arbitrary regulations and rules.

Same across every regulatory statute as well. We rarely ban any activity out right, but instead mire in a quicksand of impenetrable regulations and taxes.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[JeffAtl]

Those totals don't really matter that much on the state level though. Auto dealers tend to be among the wealthiest people in small town to medium size towns and they tend to be heavily connected within the community.

In most cases, the state representatives would vote in favor of their local auto dealers for free.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[JeffAtl]

Also, auto dealers tend to be very politically connected within local communities. Lobbying money isn't the prime mover on this.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Ralph Wiggam]

Look at the existing franchise laws and how they are being used. It's not really a question that bribes are occurring, it's what lobbying is by it's very definition.

No. Lobbying involves talking and bribery involves illegal money.

If it's "not really a question" then you should be able to provide tons of evidence to back up your claims. How about it?

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[NotDrWho]

No. Lobbying involves talking and bribery involves illegal money.

Oh, to be so young and naive again. Yes, little Jimmy, lobbying just involves talking--and Santa Claus is real too.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Mess with the Big Three.

Big Three used to mean the Big Three American auto companies. But Chrysler is owned by Fiat now. It's an Italian company.

So when bailout time comes around again in a few years . . . Italy will bail out Chrysler, right . . . ?

The positive side of Chrysler being Italian, is maybe politicians will be a bit hesitant to take bribes from a foreign country . . . you know, like treason . . . ?

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Lobbying involves talking and bribery involves illegal money.

Give me just one good reason why law makers would take legislation proposals written by a lobbyist who represents a non-voting entity and send it to the floor for a vote without so much as a single modification?

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

Establishing those connections is what takes the money.

You don't juts happen to know the right people, you have to either invest time and resources into establishing the relationships (time is money) or luck into them by going to that same (usually expensive) college.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[FatdogHaiku]

That's not really how a constitutional republic works. A simple majority doesn't EVER get to make the rules.

FTFY

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

If the car dealer lobbyist had a stronger voice, if it comes down to the biggest wallet, then you do not have democracy.
This has *everything* to do with democracy.

What is democracy? The people choosing how the government will behave.
When corporations choose how the government will behave it is called something else.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[LordLimecat]

No, but this is slashdot and trite (and unprovable!) comments about corruption are an easy way to a +5 insightful.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[LordLimecat]

So he asks for evidence, you dont provide any, and you get a +5 mod.

Good work, guys.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats a very very good question. What is wrong here? Look at everywhere else in the world. ONLY in the US do these batshit crazy weird laws against carmakers selling cars to consumers exist.

The rest of the world has something called 'a free market'. Well, not always. I admit, taxes and regulations sometimes protect local stuff. But outlawing a brand - and a local one at that? Don't they need jobs in america?

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[msauve]

They don't have to bribe all 50 states. They only have to convince Congress to exercise its authority over Interstate Commerce to prohibit these anti-competitive state laws.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[CaptainDork]

Nothing is wrong. Tesla is right on track to create a test case that will settle things once and for all.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Em Adespoton]

No. Lobbying involves talking and bribery involves illegal money.

Give me just one good reason why law makers would take legislation proposals written by a lobbyist who represents a non-voting entity and send it to the floor for a vote without so much as a single modification?

Because it's easier than writing it yourself? And hey... we play golf with those guys every Friday; it's not like they'd write up a proposal that's BAD, would they?

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Ralph Wiggam]

I was saying that "lobbying" and "bribery" have actual definitions as words.

So do you just ignore all facts that conflict with your narrative and make up word definitions as needed?

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, were you not on the memo? SCOTUS has ruled that money is speech. Welcome to Unmitigated Disaster, population: all of us.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Ralph Wiggam]

Who needs evidence when you already know everything?

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Ralph Wiggam]

That decision had absolutely nothing to do with campaign donations or lobbying. Maybe you should read it.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have to bribe all 50 states. They only have to convince Congress to exercise its authority over Interstate Commerce to prohibit these anti-competitive state laws.

And then bribe SCOTUS since that authority does not actually exist.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

Res ipsa loquitur

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Copid]

Lobbying involves talking and bribery involves illegal money.

Half of the lobbying transaction is talking. The other half is listening because the person doing the talking is a good source of campaign money.

Also, there are more definitions of bribery than the legal definition used to describe the crime.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

At the core. Money changed hands by a company or someone who wants something to go their way.

A company does NOT and NEVER has just given money to people without a reason. Has Verizon or the national associations of car dealers sent you a check, or anyone in the US for that matter? Do you know why? Because you can't do anything for them. Why do they send money to politicians? Because they know it works and they will get what they want. How that is not a bribe and why it is tolerated is beyond me. If lobbying did not change votes or lean things in the direction of the person/company giving the money, no company in the world would be doing it. The simple fact companies do it shows that money talks. Money is changing hands and favorable things are happening. Fck the definition of bribe and lobby but to me, they are the same exact thing with the same exact outcome. Lobbying is tolerated because and somehow legal because those getting the money are able to use the money for their benefit and no one is willing to change that.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

YOOOOO
don't crush dreams bro.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Mr D from 63]

And the laws should be changed, but they won't get changed as long as people keep fooling themselves into thinking its about keeping Tesla out. The dealers don't want a sales model that allows direct sales because then the other auto makers can cut them out. Its not about competition with other brands, its about their own manufactures cutting them out. Many folks won't even take time to try and understand why the laws were created to begin with. It had as much to do with consumer protection and price fixing as anything. Things have evolved.

But, it makes a lot of people feel better about fighting on behalf of Tesla, and they do deserve credit for aggressively pursuing change and using their popularity.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[msauve]

You've never read the Constitution, have you? Fact is, this would be one of the increasingly rare legitimate uses for Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, which gives Congress the power

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

If SCOTUS can claim that growing a garden for personal use is Interstate Commerce, then so to is an automobile company in one state selling cars in another.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[skine]

To be fair, money IS speech, according to SCoTUS.

Thus, it's not illegal money, it's government-approved talk.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[The New Guy 2.0]

State laws can shut down a store, even if the products there are from out of state.
State laws can say a type of car can't be operated on roads in the state.
State laws can prevent a type of car from being registered.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[PrimaryConsult]

For a more modern example look at abortion laws. In my great state the politicians are too afraid to go one way or the other so they come up with bullshit like waiting times. In order for a woman to get an abortion she has to wait three days. No reason. She just has to. This is because someone couldn't get an anti abortion law passed so they settled for attempting to shame the woman into keeping the child with arbitrary regulations and rules.

Not to jump into the hornet's nest, but a three day wait is actually pretty reasonable. Some people might be pressured (by parents or the guy) and need a few days to realize they also have the right to choose life, and that there are groups out there that will help alleviate that pressure. There is also a not small number of women who feel they rushed into the decision and regretted it (either for moral reasons or for medical ones resulting from unexpected complications). If the woman is the type to be shamed out of it in three days, imagine if the shame came after it was too late to undo?

They have five day waits for firearms, a three day wait for something more controversial than the 2nd amendment shouldn't be too much to ask...

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

I love all the chatter about how Tesla is "harming the industry" by selling direct. **rolling eyes**

Directly selling cars to the public is only harmful to the middlemen in the dealerships that ARE indeed greasing their state legislators with fat political contributions. Why should auto manufacturers be forced to deal with middlemen to sell to the public? How in the world does direct sales "harm the industry"? Are large home builders forbidden to sell houses directly to consumers? The whole concept of protecting a parasitic middleman is just ridiculous. It results in inefficiency and higher prices.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[msauve]

That's a non-sequitur. They can do those things only because there are no federal laws preventing them.

Some concrete examples - it's federal law/regulation created using the Commerce Clause which (effectively) prevents the sale and ownership of automatic weapons. It's federal law/regulation which prevents the states from regulating radio frequency spectrum.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I do. Now STFU and move along....

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Ralph Wiggam]

You should actually read Citizens United. That's not at all what it says.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

Lobbying involves campaign donations.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[budgenator]

State laws can shut down a store, even if the products there are from out of state.
State laws can say a type of car can't be operated on roads in the state.
State laws can prevent a type of car from being registered.

Sure the States can do all of that, and the Dept of Transportation can send a couple hundred million in highway funds elsewhere.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[budgenator]

In Michigan being labeled anti-auto is pretty much end of career for a politician and it's not illegal bribery it's campaign contributions and providing volunteer union minions as campaign workers.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[z0idberg]

I think the burden of proof lies on the other side.

Q. Who benefits from the bill modification?

A. Franchise dealers

Q. Who loses out ?

A. Tesla. Consumers.

So what reason did the lobbyists use to convince the members who passed the bill ?
Surely there must be valid reasons as on the face of it this hurts consumers and therefore hurts the members constituents. If they cannot show cause with these valid reasons then its reasonable to be suspicious.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[The New Guy 2.0]

If Congress wanted to regulate cars, they'd have to move the 50 state databases of car information into one national one.

Regulating cars is tough to do from Washington, DC because weather is different in the 50 states.You never have to deal with snow in California.

Re: Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[bill_mcgonigle]

see what your beloved free market gets you, you foolish libertarians?

Re: Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't talk about shit you know nothing about. Congress can regulate interstate commerce.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey there Mr Hornet, I think we're gonna need a citation on abortion >> firearms, lol!

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Vladus2000]

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
"the act or practice of giving or taking a bribe"

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
"2: something that serves to induce or influence"

Explain to me where it says it has to be illegal to be bribery. Yes, it does have a definition, and yes, you do not understand it.

A campain contribution is a bribe by the dictionary definition. We have voted in people who made the legal definition different from the dictionary definition.

Re: Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

"When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion - when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you - when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - you may know that your society is doomed." - Ayn Rand

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[ixidor]

And if they had just one, or maybe even no warranty repair facilities ( not a dealership cause sell direct) in your state? would you be willing to drive 400 miles just to get a part changed/fixed under warranty? But i digress, selling the car, and getting it fixed are 2 separate things. they should be allowed to sell direct, so many examples both ways of direct/dealerships there seems to be no clear cut line. thinking about expensive things, most things have repair close by, notable exemption, computers. i would hate to think of shipping off a tesla to a repair depot.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Nyder]

I was saying that "lobbying" and "bribery" have actual definitions as words.

So do you just ignore all facts that conflict with your narrative and make up word definitions as needed?

ya, watch it bud, that sort of talk gets you voted into office, or made the head of a big corporation...

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[shilly]

You don't need legislation to deal with this.

The hassle of a repair will figure into people's purchasing decisions. Other businesses will spring up, who make money from facilitating the repair process. Etc

Re: Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[shilly]

It's excellent rhetoric, but it's rubbish policy. If we elected governments that imposed no restrictions on the production of anything, then we are allowing the unrestricted trading of every product imaginable: polonium, abuse images, human body parts, unsafe cars, to name just a few examples. Many products cause harm in their production, or cause harm in their usage. And your ability to sue the, say, auto manufacturer who sold you a dud is a bit restricted if you're in a vegetative state. Thus, we elect governments who impose regulations to mitigate the harms.

Ayn Rand's libertartian wank-fantasy would be a pretty horrible place to live (and die).

Re: Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be probably true in most states, but in Michigan where most people buying new cars get manufacturers pricing because of relitives that work for the manufacturers, it is not exactly accurate

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[drinkypoo]

So do you just ignore all facts that conflict with your narrative and make up word definitions as needed?

No, that is what you do. There is nothing in the definition of lobbying which precludes bribery.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[rodrigoandrade]

Did you realize who posted this? Worse than little Jimmy, but at least it wasn't Millhouse.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[dywolf]

And yet there's only one type of F150, one type of Camry...
Not the California version, and the Oklahoma version, and then the Alska version...

Probably has something to do with the fact that the MFR's just build their cars to the toughest standards, and then sell them in all 50 states.
Oh, and of course, we already do regulate cars nationwide via the NHTSA.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[dywolf]

And btw, wth do you mean you never have to deal with snow in Cali ???

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[synapse7]

NOT bribes, campaign contributions.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[NotDrWho]

To be fair, money IS speech, according to SCoTUS.

LOL. forgot about that. Next time I get busted for buying a hooker, I'm going to tell the cop I was just speaking with her.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[VGPowerlord]

Give me just one good reason why law makers would take legislation proposals written by a lobbyist who represents a non-voting entity and send it to the floor for a vote without so much as a single modification?

In this case, Michigan's economy is still somewhat heavily reliant on a small set of automobile manufacturers. None of which are Tesla.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[VGPowerlord]

If you're including Tesla under "who loses out" then you also need to include General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler under "who benefits from the bill modification."

Also known as the "big 3 automakers" in the US (even though Toyota has passed Chrysler in sales).

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla's lobbiest crashes?

Even lobbier than ever!

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

Telsa... you're being banned state by state, what's wrong?

Thats a very very good question. What is wrong here? Look at everywhere else in the world. ONLY in the US do these batshit crazy weird laws against carmakers selling cars to consumers exist.

Its one of the strangest laws you guys have. Its akin to banning HP from selling computers to consumers, or banning Mc Donalds from selling Big Macs directly to consumers. It makes absolutely no logical or ethical sense whatsoever. Not in the slightest.

Whats wrong?

Seriously. What is going on here?

Have you seen Brazil's laws about automobiles and consumer electronics? :)

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Mal-2]

Not true. There is a California version of almost everything, because the emissions equipment requirements in California are stricter than the national requirements. It would be perfectly legal to supply California-legal cars to the other 49 states, but the extra equipment costs extra, weighs extra, and typically eats about 5 HP.

Re: Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

The legislation is not of such a nature as could be voted for by an honest politician. Ergo the politicians who voted for it were bribed.

Re: Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

This most definitely has little to do with Tesla!!! It's a 100% electric vehicle, no smog controls whatsoever! It is the ONE US - MADE car that is completely the same regardless if it's sold in California, or any other state. THREE CHEERS for ELON MUSK! (BTW... just read... the Tesla Model S (newest version) can do 0-60mph in 3.2 seconds... that makes it the quickest 4 - door sedan ever sold... that includes Maseratis, Porsches, Ferraris, every flavor of vehicle ever produced. Neither Michigan nor any other state has any business keeping their constituents from owning the very best of the best... shame on those corrupt bastards.

Re: Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

More importantly, Chrysler is no longer American.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Meski]

Perhaps because that's the way the world works. (including the +5 mod)

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[The New Guy 2.0]

California has hotter weather than Maine nearly all of the time. Check your national weather maps. What makes that relevant here is that cars have to operate in the environment they're in.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[dywolf]

This may come as a shock to you, but there's mountains running nearly the entire length of the state, and people live on or near them, on both sides of them. And those mountains...they get snow. Places like Truckee, Tahoe, Shingleton, Susanville, Redding, Shasta, etc. You do realize there's quite a bit more to the state than just LA and the Bay Area, yes? You act like you think I have no familiarity with the state, yet I seem to know more about than you, having grown up out there.

Re:Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[maxwells_deamon]

Not sure that is even needed

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/03...

Wonder How Much?

[Forgefather]

Wonder how much the dealer franchises had to pay in bribes for a unanimous vote. Seems a bit overkill when you only need a majority.

Re:Wonder How Much?

[lister king of smeg]

Wonder how much the dealer franchises had to pay in bribes for a unanimous vote. Seems a bit overkill when you only need a majority.

They didn't have to Michigan is the home of Detroit the "Motor City". Any one voting against it would have been shooting themselves in the foot come time for election funding.

Re:Wonder How Much?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only question is what has that gotten for the state of Michigan?

Oh wait, still having money siphoned away.

Re:Wonder How Much?

[ihtoit]

uh... have you seen the state of Detroit lately?

Re:Wonder How Much?

[jedidiah]

Nah. The real question is what took them so long? They should have been first in line to suck up to Detroit.

Re:Wonder How Much?

[Forgefather]

That makes a lot of sense. I completely forgot the historical context with the Detroit auto industries push for direct sales being the impetus for this kind of legislation in the first place.

Still, one would think that a city famous for their auto city would be in favor of passing laws that would benefit the auto industry.

Re:Wonder How Much?

[Stargoat]

It doesn't benefit their auto industry.

Re:Wonder How Much?

[TomGreenhaw]

Their voting is probably not motivated primarily by bribes - its Michigan jobs they are worried about.

Ironically, the Tesla is more American made (roughly 55% domestic and a lot more when the batteries are made by the Gigafactory) than its Ford, GM, Nissan competitors (roughly 35% domestic)

Re:Wonder How Much?

[Ralph Wiggam]

On Slashdot, bribery and shadowy conspiracies are always the default answer.

Re:Wonder How Much?

[Anonymous Coward]

yep, shooting themselves in the foot. because they're there to help themselves out first, not the tax payers they're supposed to serve. what else is new

Re:Wonder How Much?

[Anonymous Coward]

On Slashdot, bribery and shadowy conspiracies are always the default answer.

A stopped clock is right twice a day.

Re:Wonder How Much?

[Ralph Wiggam]

And it's wrong a vast majority of the time.

For people that claim to be objective and science-based, people here sure don't seem to have the same rules of evidence for claims they want to be true and claims they don't want to be true.

Re:Wonder How Much?

[RyoShin]

They didn't have to Michigan is the home of Detroit the former "Motor City".

FTFY. Detroit is a shadow of its former self, thanks in large part to its heavy reliance on the Big Three. While it may still be referred to as "Motor City", the auto companies took much of their production lines and moved them to Mexico or elsewhere, even if HQ is still around there. Flint is much the same.

That the state legislature has no problem banning Tesla direct sales despite such actions speaks volumes about where the interests of the legislators truly lie.

I would love to see this get signed and, rather than spending money on a lawsuit, Tesla opens a factory in Detroit/Flint. No state rep is going to fight against jobs (even if the plants are mostly automated and make few permanent jobs, there's at least construction,) so all of them will be eating crow when people find out that all of these nice, shiny, and by-that-time-affordable cars are being moved to other states and can't be sold in Michigan. Once the plant is up I'd expect the law to be reversed quickly.

Re:Wonder How Much?

[schnell]

uh... have you seen the state of Detroit lately?

"Detroit" is only nominally the home of the auto industry, and is maintained by Ford and GM as a brand of sorts to evoke classic American cars.

Other than executive offices, all the big auto manufacturing plants are situated - and nearly all the workers live - well outside the city itself, in the suburbs where (other than being impacted by Detroit's implosion and the overall Great Recession decline) things are pretty good.

So when you hear someone say "Detroit is fighting Tesla," thats not the case. Detroit couldn't fight Pawnee, Indiana and win two out of three. What they really actually mean is "Detroit" the brand/region, i.e. the corporations that employ hundreds of thousands of Michigan voters - and the suppliers/subcontractors/vendors to those companies, who probably employ as many if not more Michigan residents. So don't take Detroit's colossal f***up as any indication that the power of Ford/GM, its ecosystem and perhaps most importantly the UAW as being diminished in any way.

Re:Wonder How Much?

[Anonymous Coward]

And you're one of the biggest offenders around here! God dammit Pot, you're awfully fucking black!

Re:Wonder How Much?

[AmiMoJo]

Seems like bribery is pretty common in US politics, no? Maybe not outright "brown envelope under the table" bribery, but campaigns have to be funded somehow. When you need $100m to get into office you can't really afford to stick to principals or refuse "advice" from people writing you fat cheques.

Re:Wonder How Much?

[VGPowerlord]

Other than executive offices, all the big auto manufacturing plants are situated - and nearly all the workers live - well outside the city itself, in the suburbs where (other than being impacted by Detroit's implosion and the overall Great Recession decline) things are pretty good.

Or in other areas. I know in the Lansing area, we still have at least 2 operational GM plants, both built since 2000. Wikipedia suggests there are two more located somewhere in the area. That's not even counting suppliers or other areas... or even manufacturers other than GM.

Re:Wonder How Much?

[Ralph Wiggam]

What's the biggest campaign donation you think one of those "fat checks" represents?

Re:Wonder How Much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Other than executive offices, all the big auto manufacturing plants are situated - and nearly all the workers live - well outside the city itself, in the suburbs where (other than being impacted by Detroit's implosion and the overall Great Recession decline) things are pretty good.

They didn't have to Michigan is the home of Detroit the "Motor City". Any one voting against it would have been shooting themselves in the foot come time for election funding.

Did you not read his post? How are you going to rant on about Detroit? It wasn't "Detroit" that passed the bill, it was the State itself. Automakers and Dealers throughout the country are targeting States to get these illegal laws passed. And because the State itself is home to the auto industry its not hard to think they were bought off by Automakers and Dealers to make sure this passed. They did the same thing to Delorean when he wanted to build a quality safe long lasting vehicle, however the bought off the FBI, and other unknown parties to destroy him in the public eye, and the Unions were also involved, since he went outside the US to build his cars.

This is illegal for the simple fact it violates consumer laws, but I don't see Washington/regulatory bodies/courts doing anything to fine states, dealer, and the auto industry to put an end to this.

Buggy whip

[Anonymous Coward]

'Nuff said

Really?? Post a link to $$ site tto read...

[Anonymous Coward]

People.... why post articles that i have to pay money to read? That means your post is little more that a tricky advertisement.

You could at least tell us when TFA is paywalled

[tepples]

From the featured article:

Get the Full Story: Digital + Print $12 for 12 Weeks. [ Subscribe Now ]

Editors: You could at least warn us that we won't be able to participate in constructive discussion of the featured article without paying.

Re:You could at least tell us when TFA is paywalle

[jae471]

They probably just assume no one reads TFA anyway....

Let me FTFY

[pr0t0]

We live in an Oligarchy.

If the majority of wealthy car dealers don't want Tesla ruining their state-sponsored, protectionist, big-government, corporate-welfare free ride; they'll send an army of lobbyists to make sure none of them have to compete against one.

Re:Let me FTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

Precisely true. The only thing surprising here is how many Americans have heard these words and either don't believe them or don't care.

Re:Let me FTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

People can't have it both ways: Either money is speech and this is perfectly legitimate, or money isn't speech and it's not. If money is speech, then the auto manufacturers are simply using their freedom of speech to petition their government for a redress of grievances. If Tesla is losing this battle it means they aren't exercising enough free speech, or the public doesn't like what they have to say. It doesn't get much more American than that.

On the other hand, if you don't believe money is equivalent to speech because then you can be born with more free speech than someone else, this is totally fucked up.

Re:Let me FTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect this has more to do with the United Auto Workers. Tesla is non-union.

Re:Let me FTFY

[magarity]

On the other hand, if you don't believe money is equivalent to speech because then you can be born with more free speech than someone else

Free speech itself isn't more or less free; money just gets one more access via pushed content to more audience for one's free speech.

Re:Let me FTFY

[pr0t0]

Uhh...what?!

Money != speech. In fact, the United States was formed, in part, as a means of getting away from rule by monarchy/aristocracy. Our founders went to war to prevent it. But I suppose that's where we are. Maybe it's an inevitable failing of humanity that greed, not love, conquers all. After all, you get as much justice as you can afford, why should speech be any different?

But you did say "the public doesn't like what they have to say", and as we know from the article summary "The bill was modified without any opportunity for public comment." It's not like that was an accident, you know. They know full-well what the public comment would be. From the auto dealers, those they employ, and their lobbyists; we'd get: "This is bad for America!", "Think of the children!", and "This is pro-ebola!" From everyone else we'd hear "Please don't tell me how I can buy the products I want to use."

Really, this is just furthering the nail in Michigan's coffin. If Michigan residents can't buy Tesla's in their home state, they'll buy them in another. Purchasing a Tesla is statement, and a lifestyle choice. It's not a purchase of convenience. I'd fly to California and drive a Tesla back if I had to and was in the market for one. That's me taking the money I earn in Michigan and giving the sales tax on a high-dollar item to CA.

Re:Let me FTFY

[omems]

I thought we were an autonomous collective.

Re:Let me FTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

What puzzles me, as a foreigner, is that if workers unionise and do this kind of lobbying it's evil communism destroying the free world, but if businesses do it then it's the free market at work.

How does that work?

Re:Let me FTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

You're fooling yourself.

Re:Let me FTFY

[alexander_686]

Partly it is the American ethos, however romanticized, about the individual over society. A bigger factor, in my opinion, is that America's unions are pretty bad.

But here is the main reason. In business, contributions are split pretty evenly between Democrats and Republicans. It drifts from year to year, from industry to industry, but rarely do you find more than 70% coming from a single industry to a single party. I am not saying that Americans like corporate lobbing, but corporate lobbing does not discriminate.

Unions, on the other hand, give over 95% of their donations to Democrats. Than factor in that the majority of union members work for government. In effect, union members are hiring the managers who will be negotiating their salary. School board elections are notorious for this.

Re:Let me FTFY

[Em Adespoton]

Actually, your argument hinges on not one, but two things: 1) money = speech, and 2) corporations = people.

The fact that corporations using money to get their way has been twisted by some into people exercising free speech just shows how far things have gone.

Re:Let me FTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

I appreciate you taking the time to explain that, it's an intriguing insight to another world.

Re:Let me FTFY

[TheGavster]

Um, well, this isn't the free market at work. Regulation like this, where powerful officials make laws that clearly select winners and losers are exactly the kind of evil that small government libertarians fear from communism. In a free market, the government wouldn't have some weird power to dictate that a particular consumer good be sold in a special way ...

Re:Let me FTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

The US is much more unionised than many other countries, with more powerful unions too. In many American companies, only union members are allowed to work.

Re:Let me FTFY

[LordLucless]

Or, you believe the government should be limited in the things they are allowed to do, removing the incentive for bribing them in the first place.

Re:Let me FTFY

[steelfood]

Well, there's what's written on paper. And then there's what's reality.

And reality is often very different from what's written on paper.

Re: Let me FTFY

[Malenx]

In Michigan you pay sales tax when you register the car, regardless of where you bought it.

Re:Let me FTFY

[Barsteward]

it to do with the dealers not the auto workers. Are you a dealer or do you work in a dealership?

Re:Let me FTFY

[LongearedBat]

Money shouldn't be speech. When money is speech, then those with more money get more say.

In principle I don't have a problem with that. (Personal opinion.) But in practice people are selfish, and that selfishness leads to speaking loudly for things that are not always good (in fact, usually quite bad) for those who can't pay for their speech.

Free speech ought to mean that no one is hurt for what they say. Pity that what ought to be and what is are not the same.

Re:Let me FTFY

[SourceFrog]

The problem isn't "speech" - the penalties against Tesla if they attempt to violate these laws by simply selling cars to members of the public, are not "speech" - they're a form of state-sponsored violence.

Re:Let me FTFY

[dywolf]

Ladies and gentlemen, the Anti Union Propogandist.

Re:Let me FTFY

[Anonymice]

"We're all equal, but some of us are more equal than others."

Re:Let me FTFY

[Luckyo]

So in other words, the perfect society is the one where people have no power due to being individually too weak, and where only those with power get to call how much anyone can earn.

I think US actually moved away from that for a long while. You know, Eisenhower and his "freedom is about freedom from want" angle. It's only recently that pro-business propaganda succeeded in running the narrative in the direction you are angling it at.

Cannot stop progress

[suman28]

Silly Rabbit, Teslas are for the masses. You can fight with laws now, but where will you go when you are the only one of a handful of states that isn't selling teslas? You can't stop progress, just like you can't stop Uber, AirBnb or any other hip and dynamic companies.

Re:Cannot stop progress

[Ralph Wiggam]

Teslas are for the masses.

I'm a big fan of Tesla. But I wouldn't exactly say that their $75k cars are "for the masses". I have a Nissan Leaf, which is less than half that price. It's a great car, but it's certainly no Model S.

Re:Cannot stop progress

[x0ra]

Tesla's car are for the upper 5% of the population, not for the manual worker who can't afford a car worth many years of his labor, who has not access to credit, and who will be stuck driving a 20 years old car, which has a terribly low MPG. There is no way electrical vehicle can ever be affordable enough for these people. Basically, Tesla are for the guy who's wondering if he should buy a Porsche or a Mazeraty, but whose wife convince he should jump in the green bashing era...

Re:Cannot stop progress

[CrimsonAvenger]

a Porsche or a Mazeraty

Maserati.

Try to avoid writing words you've heard but never seen written. it can make you look like a halfwit.

Note that rest of your grammar will tend to do the same.

Which is sad, because your point is good....

Re:Cannot stop progress

[Obfuscant]

Silly Rabbit, Teslas are for the masses.

You must be insane. TrueCar shows me that the base price of a Tesla 2014 S is $70,890, and the "performance" version is $94,390. Kelley Blue Book puts the base price at $68,710 - $73,429. A car for the masses? A car for the lower end of the 1% more like it.

Re:Cannot stop progress

[pr0fessor]

Actually I've noticed a decline in MPG in new cars I think it's the emission controls that holds that number down. I have had older cars from the 80s and early 90s that got much better than the advertised MPG of a similar new car and better than my current car.

Re:Cannot stop progress

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I've noticed a decline in MPG in new cars I think it's the emission controls that holds that number down. I have had older cars from the 80s and early 90s that got much better than the advertised MPG of a similar new car and better than my current car.

That'd be a bit of incorrect reasoning. Certainly the effects of emissions controls is not zero, however the system for determining MPG has changed, so you're comparing two different systems without realizing it.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ratings2008.shtml

Re:Cannot stop progress

[Isca]

Tesla's and/or other electric cars will certainly be affordable for the average person at some point. When the Gigafactory comes online and is fully in production the cost of the batteries will drop dramatically. Economy of scale will kick in for all of the other production costs too. Eventually other manufacturers will come on board with fully electric cars as well.

This is still in it's infancy but I have no doubt that there will be multiple 250+ mile range electric cars under 30k in the next 5-10 years. The leaf right now is already in this price range - it would be even cheaper if it wasn't for the cost of the batteries (and the lower amount of those to keep the price down).

The Gigafactory is supposed to drop the prices of the batteries by at least 30%. But Panasonic themselves say that's a very conservative figure by 2017 (they would like to maximize their profits after all). New factories overseas will drop those prices even more, and Panasonic/Tesla is keeping an eye on those figures to make sure the gigafactory still remains competitive on price.

Re:Cannot stop progress

[SydShamino]

The weight of cars has increased dramatically due to all the new safety and comfort features. The fact average mileage has improved too impressive.

Go find the gross wt of those 80s cars and compare weight vs power vs airbags vs road noise vs electronic options.

Re:Cannot stop progress

[Anonymous Coward]

i was hoping it was a new rotary engine supercar
 

Re:Cannot stop progress

[pr0fessor]

The weight has not gone up that much the 82 vs 2005 cavalier was only about 300lb change but dropped almost 20mpg in the newer model. It's been a long time since I've got 54mpg on a road trip. It's been a long time since I've heard someone say they got 70mpg but those were diesel cars.

Re:Cannot stop progress

[Anonymous Coward]

Even sadder, this commenter is clearly not a native English speaker, so probably is just doing his best to write in a foreign language. (If his native language uses non-Roman characters, indeed he may have heard the word Maserati and learned to spell it phonetically, without having seen it written out very often with the correct spelling.)

I'm all for chiding native English speakers when they screw up their grammar online, but this time I felt inclined to give the guy a break. (You're welcome, x0ra .... or maybe not, if I'm all wrong, you can tell me so!)

Re:Cannot stop progress

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's try to be polite here. Does it matter whether Maserati ends in an "i" or a "y"? You got the point of his message, understood it to be a cogent argument, but just couldn't help yourself in belittling him. Grow up and stop filling this forum with useless, malignant, and demeaning commentary.

What a backwards state.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear they're also banning preschool goatse.

Re:You could at least tell us when TFA is paywalle

[OhPlz]

They probably didn't read it either.

Fine, let them

[Movi]

Very well, let them. Nobody in Michigan can afford one anyway.

Re:Fine, let them

[Virtucon]

Wayne County maybe but there are areas that are doing quite well.

Re:Fine, let them

[Anonymous Coward]

HA! [citation most definitely fucking needed]!

Re:You could at least tell us when TFA is paywalle

[Anonymous Coward]

Then how would they get money from WSJ?

captcha: retarded

Come to NZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla come to nz, we would welcome you here, Screw the USA.

This is getting ugly

[TomGreenhaw]

The rationale for enforcing a car dealership model is obsolete. Now these laws only protect special interests who support politicians and are at odds with the interest of the vast majority of the American public.

I'm all for state's rights, but I think its time for the federal government to step in and eliminate this unconstitutional restraint of interstate commerce.

Re:This is getting ugly

[agm]

I don't understand how the state can prevent one man from selling his goods to another. Land of the free indeed.

Re:This is getting ugly

[Obfuscant]

I don't understand how the state can prevent one man from selling his goods to another. Land of the free indeed.

Shall I see this as a statement that the corporation called "Tesla" is equivalent to a person?

Re:This is getting ugly

[agm]

No, but the person who sells the Tesla car is a person who happens to work for Tesla. That salesman should be able to sell his product to anyone who is willing to buy it without government involvment.

Re:This is getting ugly

[Obfuscant]

No, but the person who sells the Tesla car is a person who happens to work for Tesla.

The person who arranges the transaction doesn't own the car, the person known as "Tesla Corporation" does. It is a transaction between a corporation and a person, not a personal transaction between the salesman and you. When you say a person should be able to sell anything to another person in this context, you are saying that you consider the Tesla Corporation to be a person. (And we are, of course, ignoring the issue that a fleet or other corporate purchase creates, that of the buyer being a corporate "person". Ok, we aren't ignoring it, we just pointed it out.)

I happen to agree, but I just wanted to make it clear that you're basing that statement on a not entirely universal belief about the "personhood" of corporations.

Re:This is getting ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

blah buh blah buh blah blah blah. You're simply obfuscating the entire situation for your own personal amusement, troll.

Re:This is getting ugly

[agm]

No, but the person who sells the Tesla car is a person who happens to work for Tesla.

The person who arranges the transaction doesn't own the car, the person known as "Tesla Corporation" does.

The salesman has permission via their employment to sell the car. It's still a transaction between the buyer and the salesperson. The money doesn't so to the salesperson's account, but that's irrelevant.

An individual should be able to voluntarily trade with another. A company should be able to voluntarily trade with another company, or another individual. The state should not be involved.

Back to my point: land of the free indeed.

Re:You could at least tell us when TFA is paywalle

[The New Guy 2.0]

Coming from Slashdot used to be an exemption to the WSJ paywall... looks like the Slashdot/WSJ bridge is down.

:%s/Teslas/Leafs/

[Anonymous Coward]

fixed that for you...

Tesla makes a DAMN fine automobile, no doubt (know a couple of people who own them) but here in Atlanta at least (& we are #2 market for electrics in US) it's easily 10:1... when my wife's 07 ES350 needs replacing we'll almost certainly go electric whether Tesla, Nissan or other (BMW should have theirs out by then).

Re::%s/Teslas/Leafs/

[mrchaotica]

(BMW should have theirs out by then)

They're apparently out now; I saw one on the road this morning.

Re::%s/Teslas/Leafs/

[PopeRatzo]

I saw one of the BMW electrics as one of the pace cars that led the Chicago Marathon last Sunday. They're pretty sweet looking.

There was also one of those new BMW supercars at the head of the race. Black on black and it looks amazing.

http://www.autoevolution.com/n...

Re::%s/Teslas/Leafs/

[Noxal]

Tesla makes a DAMN fine automobile

The dealers are not what they seem

Re: :%s/Teslas/Leafs/

[Anonymous Coward]

That is gas, not electric. Only the i3 is electric.

so im sure the pitch for this one was great.

[nimbius]

auto exec:: you have to do something!!! Tesla will RUIN us with their online sales tactics and futuristic car designs they probably stole from us!! hard working people from michigan will lose their jobs!
governor: what about flint, saginaw, pontiac, and detroit...theyre all completely bankrupt from 40 years of your bullshit.
auto exec: yeah but that was just the hand of the free market and the customers werent buying and stocks too, those were bad.
governor:so you're telling me you cant compete against another american car maker...but you already have an electric car called the volt...and you could just revive the 2 or 3 GM electric vehicles you designed in the past...those worked and were cheap.
auto exec: yeah, we could, but thats all way more expensive than our 2015 strategy: Fucking do what we say or you're ass is out of office.
Governor: Tesla?! why didnt you tell me about these flaming terrorist shariah abortion clinics on wheels sooner!

Re:so im sure the pitch for this one was great.

[Ralph Wiggam]

s and futuristic car designs they probably stole from us!!

They pretty clearly copied Aston Martin's exterior design. But Ford only owns a small minority of Aston Martin.

Re:so im sure the pitch for this one was great.

[Barsteward]

i think Ford has divested itself of any involvement with Aston Martin but the new fords do seem to have some aston styling to them

Re:so im sure the pitch for this one was great.

[Anonymous Coward]

auto exec:: you have to do something!!! Tesla will RUIN us with their online sales tactics and futuristic car designs they probably stole from us!! hard working people from michigan will lose their jobs!
governor: I want to build a bridge to Canada
auto exec::But what about Tesla?
governor: We passed a bill that screwed the Unions over night, I'm sure we can do something about Tesla in just one week.
auto exec: Do you even want to get re-elected?
governor: I'm Rick Snyder, Bitch!

Re:so im sure the pitch for this one was great.

[squiggleslash]

Again, because I end up having to point this out in every thread: the manufacturers (the "auto exec" in this fantasy) are not fans of the dealership franchise system.

I know this personally, I worked for a company that handled the relationship between dealerships and manufacturers for about 15 years, including at various points at least one country's division of each of the big 3. My job was in part helping my employer in trying to tweak the business models of dealerships to make them the least burden on manufacturers they could be. Because they are a burden. And manufacturers see them as such.

The franchise laws are there because of a combination of lobbying by the dealerships themselves and perceived historical abuses by the manufacturers. No other reasons. I can tell you it's almost certain that, behind closed doors of course, Ford, Chrysler, and GM's top brass are cheering Tesla on.

It's a Republican Thing

[Jodka]

According to this map, state bans on Tesla sales are a Republican thing.

The Governor of Michigan, Rick Snyder, is a Republican. The Michigan State Senate has a 26-to-12 Republican majority and in the House a 59-to-50 Republican majority. With control of both the executive and legislative branches of government, it is certainly Republicans who are accountable for revoking the freedom to purchase a Tesla in Michigan.

By the way, it is election season, and I have noticed signs in my neighborhood stating, "For freedom, vote Republican."

Re:It's a Republican Thing

[tomhath]

state bans on Tesla sales are a Republican thing.

Your chart doesn't support that statement. Blue states are almost evenly split with the majority allowing sales; Red somewhat less even against allowing direct sales. But it's hardly what anyone would call a "Republican thing".

Re:It's a Republican Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

But your map shows Michigan as a blue state, and there's a lot of blue states in that map disallowing Tesla sales. Michigan is also home to many other car manufacturers. Granted, I counted 7 red states and 14 blue states as allowing direct sales, but it looks like the situation is more complex than it seems. Certainly there are die-hard blue states like Maryland and New Jersey that disallow direct sales. The correlation appears weak, and I definitely believe this is a case of "correlation is not causation".

Re:It's a Republican Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

While I am not going to dispute these facts, it is all but irrelevant when it passed in flying colors by both sides.
Its a different beast up here in Michigan, the auto industry is all we have keeping our modest economy afloat. Telsa will and should expect to find their toughest fight will be here.

Re:It's a Republican Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoops, I believe it's 8 red states, not 7. Man, keeping track of state legislature corruption is hard...

Re:It's a Republican Thing

[CoderJoe]

And for the irony, aren't the Republicans usually all for the free market and against restrictions? But here they're pushing for the opposite: restrict the market to block out competition and support the entrenched.

Re:It's a Republican Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's a Michigan thing; how many Democrats voted against the bill in either chamber? One.
It's a Michigan thing.

Re:It's a Republican Thing

[JeffOwl]

The Michigan State Senate has a 26-to-12 Republican majority and in the House a 59-to-50 Republican majority. With control of both the executive and legislative branches of government, it is certainly Republicans who are accountable for revoking the freedom to purchase a Tesla in Michigan.

So wait, 49 of the 50 democrat reps vote for this and all 12 democrat senators vote for this and it's a Republican thing?

you must be trolling.

Re:It's a Republican Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

there are lots of other industries you can't directly buy from the manufacturer. this is nothing new and has nothing to do w/ the party.

Re:It's a Republican Thing

[tomhath]

And for the irony, aren't the Republicans usually all for the free market and against restrictions?

No. In general they don't like big government, but that's not the same as no regulation.

In this case it's not clear if the driving force is dealers or the UAW, probably both. Odd bedfellows and all that.

Re:It's a Republican Thing

[xyzzyman]

In the other industries is it illegal, or is it just by the industries choice? I'm asking seriously for examples of other ones where it's illegal.

Re:It's a Republican Thing

[painandgreed]

And for the irony, aren't the Republicans usually all for the free market and against restrictions?

No. In general they don't like big government, ...

Ya, right. The last Republican president created and entire new branch of government and got all sorts of new powers granted to the government. There's no small government political party and there hasn't been a fiscally conservative President since Eisenhower. Everybody only hates pork spending when it doesn't go to their state or support their causes.

Re:It's a Republican Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest you read about the three tier system.

Re:It's a Republican Thing

[steelfood]

Specifically for Michigan, it's a Michigan (Detroit) thing. Big auto you know?

Specifically for the link in question, there's a strong correlation between blue states and allowing Tesla sales.

To be fair, neither really say that Republicans are for banning Tesla.

Re:It's a Republican Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a unanimous voted in the Senate, followed by only one dissenting vote in the House. Assuming the dissenting vote was Democrat, that means 12/12 dems in the Senate voted for it, and 49/50 dems in the House voted for it.

Both parties are completely accountable, which means it's bipartisan, you stupid fuck.

Re:It's a Republican Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

So wait, 49 of the 50 democrat reps vote for this and all 12 democrat senators vote for this and it's a Republican thing?

Yes. Because it made no difference how Democrats voted. If every Democrat had voted for the measure then it would have passed. If every Democrat had voted against the measure it then would have passed. Whenever the majority party of a legislature has enough votes from its own party to pass legislation then the votes of the opposing parties are purely symbolic and have no effect on the legislative outcome.

Republicans control the Michigan legislature therefore Republicans should be held accountable for any legislation passed with a majority comprised of Republicans.

It is about blaming those in control for bad outcomes.

Re:It's a Republican Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Your flaw is in you use of a map based on voting for Obama, not the actual makeup of the state. Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Ohio both have a house, senate and governor that are all Republican. Iowa has 2 of the 3 controlled by Republicans.

Re:It's a Republican Thing

[Jawnn]

"Yeah. We're all about the 'free market', until we're not. Then we're just blatantly hypocritical pricks." No wait, that's our stance on personal liberty, except when it's women or gays we're talking about."

Is this a surprise that it's MICHIGAN???

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay where is Tesla production? Not in Michigan. What state is most famous for being the home of the U.S. car industry? Oh wait that would be Michigan. Hummmm why is it a surprise that the state government would move to block sales of Tesla?

Re:Is this a surprise that it's MICHIGAN???

[Anonymous Coward]

it's the people mover all over again

Brand Image

[Anonymous Coward]

If I were Tesla, I don't think I'd want my cars seen anywhere near Detroit. They can stick with their Mexican-built Fords and Chevys.

I heard that they actually used to build cars in Michigan once.

Re:You could at least tell us when TFA is paywalle

[chinton]

You're (dubiously) assuming that most /.ers read TFA in the first place...

Don't they care about the sales tax revenue?

[ZorinLynx]

Now people will just go out of state to buy Teslas, and thus the tax revenue will go to another state.

This is a case where someone didn't think things through.

Re:Don't they care about the sales tax revenue?

[olsmeister]

In Michigan, you pay the sales tax when the vehicle is registered. You can't avoid paying the sales tax by buying in another state.

Re:Don't they care about the sales tax revenue?

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to read how registering a car works, numb nut

Re:Don't they care about the sales tax revenue?

[CoderJoe]

Not when registered (getting a plate) but when you transfer the title between owners.

Re:Don't they care about the sales tax revenue?

[CoderJoe]

However, I don't know offhand if you can get a MI tag on a car titled in another state.

Telsa's lobbiest crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

Michigan Auto Dealer's Association PAC donations: over $3 million in Michigan
http://followthemoney.org/entity-details?eid=3185

Tesla Motor's Donations in the total of US: about $55,000
http://followthemoney.org/entity-details?eid=422706

Republicans Control Michigan

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is where the logic fails

1) Republicans control the House, Senate, and Governorship of Michigan.
2) Republicans are "pro-business".
3) Republicans believe in "minimal government".
4) Republicans believe in "minimal regulation"

It would stand to reason that people holding this philosophy would let the "market forces" take their course without government interference. However, this is not how they behave. Hmmm.

Re:Republicans Control Michigan

[x0ra]

3) and 4) are only valid in during election when it's time to manufacture consent. Trust me, they are very pro-government and pro-regulation if it goes in the interest of the companies paying their multi-millions campaign.

Re:Republicans Control Michigan

[asylumx]

Republicans believe in states rights, which means minimal federal government. They do NOT believe in "minimal government" as you called it. Republicans in state positions are VERY heavy-handed.

And yes, Republicans control Michigan which is not likely to change anytime soon. That said, even if they didn't, auto mfg is the big industry here and most politicians R or D are not likely to do anything that would harm that industry, especially right now after they have just recently "recovered."

Re:Republicans Control Michigan

[Crashmarik]

Rinos believe in small government when they are out of office.
Like anyone else they believe they know whats best for everyone else when in office.

Oddly enough this actually validates the position that government should be as minimalist as feasible.

Re:Republicans Control Michigan

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans believe in states rights, which means minimal federal government. They do NOT believe in "minimal government" as you called it. Republicans in state positions are VERY heavy-handed.

The "friend" system? Some are more equal than others?

And yes, Republicans control Michigan which is not likely to change anytime soon. That said, even if they didn't, auto mfg is the big industry here and most politicians R or D are not likely to do anything that would harm that industry, especially right now after they have just recently "recovered."

Bad argument. You can't "protect auto mfg industry against Tesla", for Tesla is auto mfg industry. And surely, Tesla would be a less dangerous competitor than, say, Toyota. Tesla only do electrics - many don't want that.

Re:Republicans Control Michigan

[PopeRatzo]

Republicans control Michigan which is not likely to change anytime soon.

The polls in the Michigan gubernatorial race are within the margin of error.

It could change sometime soon, but who knows?

Re:Republicans Control Michigan

[The Ickle Jones]

Republicans believe in states rights, which means minimal federal government.

Really? So why support the TSA, the Patriot Act, the NSA's mass surveillance, and a number of other unconstitutional things? I'm aware that the Democrats (the other side of The One Party) do the same crap, but why do "small government" people seem to want the exact opposite of what they claim? Oh, they're politicians. That makes sense.

Re:Republicans Control Michigan

[Em Adespoton]

Interesting... so the best way to save a beleaguered auto mfg industry is to alienate an automobile company that's set to reinvigorate the auto mfg industry, so that they get stuff built by Toyota in Japan instead of by Detroit?

Also, as the vehicles aren't illegal to drive in MI and the current offerings require you to have significant capital and thus significant mobility, what exactly are they preventing here? New car sales in MI? Isn't this how Cuba ended up the way it did?

Their logic astounds me.

Re:Republicans Control Michigan

[Anonymous Coward]

But Democrat run states ban the sale of firearms, which is actually mentioned specifically in the Constitution, and that is OK?

Screw you liberals.

Re:Republicans Control Michigan

[JDAustin]

This is like Republicans being anti-ethanol in general unless they are from Iowa....

Re:Republicans Control Michigan

[Anonymous Coward]

there's a big difference between pro-business and pro-free market

Re: Republicans Control Michigan

[Anonymous Coward]

It was ok until McDonald v. Chicago. Until then states were free to ban guns because the 2nd amendment didn't apply to states. It only applies via the 14th amendment. And no state actually bans guns outright. Screw you uninformed self-proclaimed constitutional scholar.

Re:Republicans Control Michigan

[Drethon]

It actually seems kind of odd that Michigan is Republican controlled since we've voted for the Democratic presidential candidate every election in recent history.

Re:Republicans Control Michigan

[dywolf]

or if it involves telling women what to do with their bodies

Re:Republicans Control Michigan

[dywolf]

Name one state that has banned hte sale of firearms.

Re:Republicans Control Michigan

[VGPowerlord]

3) and 4) are only valid in during election when it's time to manufacture consent. Trust me, they are very pro-government and pro-regulation if it goes in the interest of the companies paying their multi-millions campaign.

Since this is a mid-term election year and election day is less than a month away, you'd think that would apply right now.

Especially since Michigan has its gubernatorial election on mid-term years.

Re:Republicans Control Michigan

[asylumx]

Controlling the governorship is not tantamount to controlling the state. The state legislature will continue to be majority republican.

Re:Republicans Control Michigan

[asylumx]

Ya, agreed. Gerymandering has pretty significant effects, doesn't it? The presidential and senate elections aren't affected by gerrymandering, but the federal congress and the state legislature are heavily affected by it. I didn't say the majority of the state are (or vote for) Republicans, I said the Republicans control the state. There is a distinct difference.

Re:Republicans Control Michigan

[Drethon]

The South East vs the rest of Michigan differences are rather interesting: http://www.politico.com/2012-e... If Detroit keeps dropping in population it could actually have a pretty drastic difference in elections.

Re:Republicans Control Michigan

[PopeRatzo]

Just remember, gerrymandering only works for so long. And then it always backfires. Because people move and populations change.

Yes, Michigan could flip sooner rather than later.

Re:Republicans Control Michigan

[Uberbah]

Republicans believe in states rights,

I'd believe that, if I were born yesterday. "State's rights", like "small government", are mere marketing terms for agendas, and go out the window the second they conflict with said agenda. In this case, helping the big business of car dealerships.

Re:Republicans Control Michigan

[Anonymous Coward]

1 is correct, 2 is marginally correct, but 3 and 4 cannot be attributed to republicans. Conservatives hold to 3 and 4. Republicans are not necessarily conservatives which is an important distinction.

Re:Republicans Control Michigan

[asylumx]

Districts get redrawn, usually by the party in control of the legislature. Yes, eventually it might because very difficult (or impossible) to gerrymander enough districts for them to keep control but for now, the state is losing population and usually from blue areas (Detroit, Flint, etc) not Red areas (everywhere else including Grand Rapids).

Re:Republicans Control Michigan

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the more accurate generalization would be to state that Republicans believe in the concentration of wealth and the suppression of the masses. When it is convenient Republicans will cover this under the guise of non-regulation (ie. financial sector deregulation), but conversely they will support government regulation when it encourages concentration of wealth (ie, extending copyrights and IP enforcement to help create government mandate monopolies.)

So funny it's sad.

[jedidiah]

Never mind Tesla. I don't even want to deal with dealers for conventional cars. I would rather order the thing online direct from the factory (or Amazon) and just have it delivered. There is so much crap an nonsense you have to deal with at a car dealership, it's not even funny.

This "upselling" thing is a sickness that seems to have infested everything.

Re:So funny it's sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Even though my last dealership experience was rather painless (it helps right away getting a salesman who understands that you won't tolerate the usual BS and don't have any urgent need for the car) but it still took half the damn day from the time we arrived for a test drive to when the missus was able to drive it off the lot.

Re:So funny it's sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

My last dealership experience was some years ago, but I think it helped that I was not there for 'a car,' I was there 'to see if I want that exact car on your lot over there.'
Salesweasels are trained quite well to apply pressure at any sign of a potential mark being uncertain of what it is that they desire. Any moment of weakness will be taken as an opportunity for a (extremely mild considering what other populations with similar training get up to) psychological assault to manipulate your desires toward whatever on the lot is exactly at your potential ability to pay off in 5 years (or lease, or whatever pay option).

Re:So funny it's sad.

[Obfuscant]

I would rather order the thing online direct from the factory (or Amazon) and just have it delivered. There is so much crap an nonsense you have to deal with at a car dealership, it's not even funny.

Having to ship it back to get warranty repairs would kind of make warranties useless. I much prefer being able to drive it to the dealer and telling him "it isn't working, fix it." Also to deal with recalls. (This is a lesson I learned after many years of buying commodity PCs. I've had to drive 60 miles to take one back that wasn't working, and I much prefer walking into the local shop and dropping the problem in their lap.)

As for "nonsense", you just need to find a good dealer. They exist. I went to a local Chevy dealer looking for my last car and was offered a good deal on a used one. I told the guy I would think about it and he said ok. I called him two days later and said 'no thanks'. The next day the manager called me to twist my arm -- and I told him in no uncertain terms that when I said 'no' I meant no and I was not going to accept his strong-arm tactics and he'd just cost Chevy and his dealership a long-time Chevy owner. So I went somewhere else.

That somewhere else has been an excellent dealer with no nonsense or drama, no attempts to sell me a new model when take my current one in for service, and they gave me a good price on the one I've bought from them so far. I'll certainly go back for the next one.

Re:So funny it's sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Having to ship it back to get warranty repairs would kind of make warranties useless. I much prefer being able to drive it to the dealer and telling him "it isn't working, fix it." Also to deal with recalls. (This is a lesson I learned after many years of buying commodity PCs. I've had to drive 60 miles to take one back that wasn't working, and I much prefer walking into the local shop and dropping the problem in their lap.)

Whatever floats your boat. But tell me, why can't I float my boat the way I want? What is the purpose of banning the method I prefer? It's not like you can't continue doing things your way if you want to.

Re:So funny it's sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have to take it back to the specific dealer you bought it from?

In Canada, at least where I lived, I could take my Volkswagen to any dealer that did any Volkswagen warranty work and they would fix it.

And this is just guessing/interpretation, but I think what Volkswagen would give them for hte work was set by Volkswagen, so even if the place would have gouged you normally, they only ever got the same from warranty work. I think this is it, because my Volkswagen was in to 3 different dealerships for a minor but recurring problem and each dealership invoiced the same for the work. And at the very least 2 of them were owned by different people/groups.

2 Questions

[CanHasDIY]

I have 2 questions I'd like answered by someone who's not financially nor emotionally invested in the whole "Tesla vs the Gobermint" debate:

1) For what reason would a state legislature want to make it illegal for a manufacturer to own their own dealership?

2) For what reason would a manufacturer not want to franchise their dealerships?

Thanks (to the probably 2 out of 100 responses that will actually fit my criteria) in advance.

Re:2 Questions

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Don't know.

2) Don't know either, can't wait to see some answers on that one.

But I'm glad to fit your criteria :)

Re:2 Questions

[Anonymous Coward]

1) So the manufacturer cannot give their own dealership an unfair advantage over franchised dealerships. This is what happened back in the early 20th century when Ford and others were trying to strong-arm their franchisees.

2) So they can sell direct to consumers. They feel that existing franchised auto-dealerships will not give them a fair shake. They'll steer customers unfairly to buy the Ford, Chevy, Nissan, whatever else they're selling if Tesla doesn't give them a bigger commission. Think of the last time you visit a commission based electronics store (ABC Warehouse as an example), the salesmen will push a consumer to purchase the goods which give them the biggest commission. It doesn't matter what the consumer needs, they want a bigger payday, and honestly with that model it's hard to blame them.

Using the electronics example, Tesla is taking the Apple approach, where they want to control the presentation of their goods and who sells them. Apple might not get the greatest shake from the salesman at ABC Warehouse if Samsung is offering a higher commission. However when you go to an Apple Store, you get a salesman who is not paid on commission and their job is to solely educate you about Apple products. Tesla wants the same experience, come to a store where the salesman knows everything about a Tesla and can sell it to you in an environment catered to it. These are niche products that won't get a fair shake from the existing dealerships without a good bribe, just like our Congress in Michigan has shown.

Re:2 Questions

[Anonymous Coward]

1) In this case when the manuf in question competes with the biggest industry in the state.
        In other cases, when the state's dealership associations have political clout.

2) When the manuf in question does not have enough sales to warrant a dealership infrastructure.
          When the manuf in questions sells cars which do not require less periodic maintenance which is a dealership's bread and butter
          When the manuf in question enters the business when the internet makes dealership's unnecessary for getting the public to buy your car.
          When the manuf in question does not want the unfortunate car salesman baggage that comes with a traditional car dealership.

Re:2 Questions

[larien]

I'm not involved as I'm in Scotland....

1) The state legislature is run by people. People are (a) greedy and (b) want to stay in power. When car company lobby groups see potential competition, it's cheaper for them to bribe, sorry, "provide campaign funds" to a pet politician than to actually compete. Those people take the money and decry the horrible, horrible Tesla company for daring to defile the hard working people who they've been speaking to (read - taking wodges of cash from).

2)There are some reasons, e.g. here and various Google searches would give you differing opinions. Perhaps it's simply that, because of their current low sales volumes, dealerships just can't provide the right environment to sell Teslas.

Re:2 Questions

[Sowelu]

1) It forces dealerships to price things locally and in competition with other dealerships, instead of based on the manufacturers' global strategies. Dick pricing moves are therefore local rather than global, prices aren't fixed everywhere across the country, sales actually happen. Also, a third-party dealership is more likely to want to sell you a used car. Manufacturer owned dealerships have a huge incentive to push new ones. If third-party dealerships had to compete with first-party ones, they would all get priced out of the new car market very quickly and likely go out of business, and then the used car market would suck.

Also, theoretically anyway, it should protect some smaller manufacturers. If a big manufacturer had the infrastructure to do direct sales to everyone, but a smaller manufacturer had worse infrastructure and had to go through dealerships, then the big manufacturer would take its lack of a middleman and price the smaller one out of business. The market doesn't seem to be working like that right now though.

Can't really answer 2).

Re:2 Questions

[CanHasDIY]

1) "Because politicians are greedy!" is exactly the sort of emotional response I was looking to avoid.

2) Good link; I was expecting a "Tesla == teh shit" fluff piece, but the guy actually did have some legitimate bitches about the process of buying straight from the manufacturer, and well-reasoned explanations for why a dealership model would have been impossible for Tesla in the beginning, and would still be unprofitable today.

Re:2 Questions

[CanHasDIY]

1) It forces dealerships to price things locally and in competition with other dealerships, instead of based on the manufacturers' global strategies. Dick pricing moves are therefore local rather than global, prices aren't fixed everywhere across the country, sales actually happen. Also, a third-party dealership is more likely to want to sell you a used car. Manufacturer owned dealerships have a huge incentive to push new ones. If third-party dealerships had to compete with first-party ones, they would all get priced out of the new car market very quickly and likely go out of business, and then the used car market would suck.

Well said.

Also, theoretically anyway, it should protect some smaller manufacturers. If a big manufacturer had the infrastructure to do direct sales to everyone, but a smaller manufacturer had worse infrastructure and had to go through dealerships, then the big manufacturer would take its lack of a middleman and price the smaller one out of business. The market doesn't seem to be working like that right now though.

Can't really answer 2).

I think you just did.

Re:2 Questions

[CanHasDIY]

They feel that existing franchised auto-dealerships will not give them a fair shake. They'll steer customers unfairly to buy the Ford, Chevy, Nissan, whatever else they're selling if Tesla doesn't give them a bigger commission.

Can't believe that to be the case, because that would mean the people in charge of Tesla's Marketing Department are complete morons - never has a new car salesman tried to "steer" a potential sale to their competitors.

Ever.

Re: 2 Questions

[valkraider]

Can't believe that to be the case, because that would mean the people in charge of Tesla's Marketing Department are complete morons - never has a new car salesman tried to "steer" a potential sale to their competitors.

Remember - most dealerships sell multiple makes. If one of their makes gives the dealership more kickback - the dealership pushes that make. Also, dealerships sell many models. They push the models they want - instead of simply answering questions, informing the consumer, and helping the consumer into an appropriate configuration. Finally - dealerships make a ton of money on "add ons". If a particular model has fewer available after sale add ons available - a dealership will avoid that model. This is all before considering the profits they make on service. Can't sell oil changes to Tesla buyers - so let's push the BMW or Porsche instead... Look. Tactics like these laws are simply fear. Dealerships suck. Everyone knows they suck. The only people I know who defend dealerships are people who work there.

Re:2 Questions

[Digital Mage]

Planet Money did a great segment on automotive dealerships and should answer most of your questions:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money...

Re:2 Questions

[Anonymous Coward]

1. I'll leave #1 alone as irrelevant in light of #2.
2. I'm pretty sure Tesla can sell its entire production capacity from the factory at the right price. As long as they don't piss off Amazon. Personally, I think there is a lot less scumbag car salesmen since GM went bust. I can only hope the remaining coxukerz go down in flames as Elon simply gives people a choice. Even though they don't have the brains to make a choice. So don't ask me why your fucking senetors reign longer than the average king. - Contemptable losers.

Re:2 Questions

[drinkypoo]

1) For what reason would a state legislature want to make it illegal for a manufacturer to own their own dealership?

There is no legitimate purpose. This has been covered in discussions about this ad infinitum. If you really cared, you'd know.

2) For what reason would a manufacturer not want to franchise their dealerships?

Control.

Are you really this daft, or do you just play an obtuse nitwit on slashdot?

Re:2 Questions

[PPalmgren]

Remember, competition in the car sales arena has pushed them to thin margins over the past few decades. The reason for the auto crisis follow-on to the recent recession was because the major manufacturers were using base models as loss leaders and only making money on premium models, addons, parts, and auto loans.

Dealerships often don't make money on the new car sale, but on the financing terms. The second item in that list is service, which dealers make a good penny on. Electric cars require virtually no service and are thus not beneficial in the long-term existence of the current dealership model. If every car was a tesla, the dealership would just be a glorified sales floor with no additional service revenue.

Re: 2 Questions

[CanHasDIY]

Can't believe that to be the case, because that would mean the people in charge of Tesla's Marketing Department are complete morons - never has a new car salesman tried to "steer" a potential sale to their competitors.

Remember - most dealerships sell multiple makes.

Right, but from the same manufacturer. That's why the signs say things like "Ford-Lincoln-Mercury" not "Chevy-Dodge-Ford" on the sign.

Look. Tactics like these laws are simply fear. Dealerships suck. Everyone knows they suck. The only people I know who defend dealerships are people who work there.

I know that's precisely the sort of emotional response I didn't want to see. And judging from your description regarding how you think dealerships work when it comes to pushing this model or that, I'd say you don't know nearly enough about new car dealerships to make an informed judgement on the topic.

Use 'Corporation Personhood'?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not one to promote the idea of Corporations being recognized as 'persons' (e.g. 'personhood') but since they are, I have to believe that old Elon has some super smart lawyers on his team that could make this a Supreme Court issue. I can't quite think of a relevant analogy in respect to people but I have to believe there is one...the concept of 'restricting a persons ability to work' is what I'm thinking of...in other words I'm imagining some kind of legislation that might try to restrict a certain segment of the population engaging in some type of work would have to be some kind of discrimination or against Federal labor laws...such state legislation would never fly...if a Corporation is a 'person' then that would seem to be applicable to them...in any case...regardless Elon HAS to have good lawyers, surely he can jig up some kind of court case to get this to the Supreme Court at a minimum and potentially win...

Though of course he may have an entirely different strategy...it's clear he's winning this battle 'state by state', those states that impede his progress will just lose out...Elon has the cash to fight this battle to the death & he clearly has no intention of losing.

Re:Use 'Corporation Personhood'?

[khallow]

Corporate personhood != personhood and the use of corporate personhood has to been to provide constitutional rights to the people who comprise the corporation. Your approach won't work since corporations aren't treated as people and labor laws aren't part of fundamental rights in the US Constitution.

I think here the matter would be regulation of interstate commerce, an area over which the federal government has jurisdiction.

Nothing like...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing like sneaky, underhanded politicians...oh wait, I was triply redundant there. Sorry.

The party of free markets...

[PopeRatzo]

Bill HB 5606 originally intended to offer added protection to franchised dealers and consumers from price gouging by carmakers, and was passed by the Michigan House in September without any anti-Tesla language. However, once it hit the Senate wording was changed that might imply the legality of a manufacturer-owned dealership was removed. The modified bill was passed unanimously by the Senate on October 2, and then sent back to the House that day where it passed with only a single dissenting vote.

It's probably worth mentioning that both houses of the Michigan legislature are controlled by Republicans, and the governor of Michigan is a Republican.

Who is the party of free markets and economic growth?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Re:You could at least tell us when TFA is paywalle

[XxtraLarGe]

Here, this one's free.

why do cowboys hate freedom?

[Thud457]

Are you colour blind?!! From the very map you cite, it looks like an even break between red & blue states.

With the exception of a few states, this looks more like a Western (non-coastal) state thing.
Western : Montana, Wyoming, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas.
Plus a scattered handful : Arkansas, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Michigan, Kentucky, Alabama, Virginia, South Carolina, Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey & Delaware.

Re:why do cowboys hate freedom?

[Anonymous Coward]

The very map he cites shows that 8 out of 24 red states allow Tesla sales versus 15 out of 26 blue states. Or, in other words, 33% versus 58%. Or, in other words, blue states are 73% more likely to allow Tesla sales.

Dealers may not light how tesla fights back.

[tommyatomic]

Tesla could always attempt to burn the dealer down the dealer industry to spite the dealers.

Massive financial incentives would be the best way. I would love to own a Model S. But really what I can afford is more in the price range of a 3 year old Compact Subaru or a Ford. My financial capacity determines my purchase choice. Therefore if Tesla wanted to spite the auto dealers that don't want to play fair: Telsa could also choose not to play fair. They could generate incentives to reduce the opportunities for dealers to make a sale to a customer that really actually wanted a Telsa. Those incentives could come right out of Tesla's so far as I've seen unused marketing budget. Threatening a dozen heavily subsidized customers per banned-state would be a pretty evil start.

Effectively operating off of a theoretical page out of the art of war. Any sale Tesla in a given state generally denies an autodealer a sale; which denies them funds to fight their irrational war against the future.

In hunting terms its called poaching. Unchecked poachers frequently cause significant ripple effect in herd populations. Likewise the Model S lack much if the service issues that cause people to replace or trade in their cars thus denying many future dealer sales.

Free Enterprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you need any proof that we are living under an Oligarchy and heading towards Fascism, this is it.

Capitalism would not prevent the sales, and the state that is trying to "go green" and trying to "save money" is hindering free enterprise, and free speech.

I suggest everybody halt all taxes to the state of Michigan.

The Car Dealership-Industrial Complex

[Livius]

Okay, I've always assumed that the stereotypes about the honest of car dealers were true, but I never suspected that they were this much of an entrenched monied special interest group.

Well if people are getting this rich off of essentially retail, then there are bigger things wrong with this picture than we thought.

Re:The Car Dealership-Industrial Complex

[RaySt]

If they had competitive cars to sell, they probably wouldn't mind so much - they'd just buckle down, and emphasize the value they bring to the table (perceived or real). But they don't have ultra-high-tech, hyped cars to compete, and now their lifeline is at risk. I'm not surprised they go this route.
But Tesla is in a better position here I think. First, nothing says "this product is awesome" than competitors trying to ban it. Second, they can up the game. I was an evil strategist, I'd start by building extra many free charging stations in MI, run a large ad campaign, then offer the car at a discount for MI residents.

Crush The Wonderful

[JimSadler]

The US has decomposed into a state where anything wonderful and new will be attacked and maybe crushed. We need to arrest congress people who vote for things like restraint of trade and we need Tesla to receive billions of dollars from states that have tried to crush them. We do not allow people who are in a house or senate to break the law and restrain trade and conspire to give advantage to more established companies. That is criminal in nature. So how about we drag Michigan into the federal courts and award a 100 billion dollar judgement to Tesla and dump Michigan into a cess pool for acting illegally? The same condition applies to leaders who allowed torture of foreign captives. They should have been hung as war criminals right up to and including Bush. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CAN NOT TORTURE PEOPLE - ever- for any reason what so ever. We also do not allow secret courts or the burial of information that is actually public property.

I would vote against Tesla's cradle-to-grave...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and nobody's ever bribed me. My view is quite simple: vertical monopolies are bad. Thousands of pages of legal argument have discussed both sides, and that's the side I happen to come down on. A vertical monopoly on high end electric cars, in particular, would be bad.

Stop assuming everyone who doesn't agree with you is on the take, guys. It takes gross immaturity of thought to assume that every conclusion but your own is so ridiculous that nobody could have been led to that conclusion on its own merits.

Re:I would vote against Tesla's cradle-to-grave...

[khallow]

My view is quite simple: vertical monopolies are bad.

"Vertical monopoly" is just a nonsense phrase, like a "pink monopoly". Tesla has no monopolies, vertical, pink, or otherwise.

What Tesla has is vertical integration which is an approach that Elon Musk has used before (with SpaceX).

Stop assuming everyone who doesn't agree with you is on the take, guys.

It's pretty clear in this case that a lot of legislators are on the take here. It's pure rent seeking to protect car dealerships and has no value to the public.

Re:I would vote against Tesla's cradle-to-grave...

[pr0fessor]

In order for this to be a verticle monopoly all electric cars would need to only be sold tesla

Re:I would vote against Tesla's cradle-to-grave...

[Em Adespoton]

I presume you have the same view on other companies who own the vertical, like Apple, Sony, Honeywell and Lockeed Martin. The view being 1) it's a monopoly just because they own the vertical but have plenty of competition and 2) it's bad.

It's not a party thing at all

[brunes69]

.... this is Michigan you are talking about. Ford, Chrysler, and GM country.

You can be it is them and their dollars doing this, and it would be happening regardless of what party was in power.

Gaming the legislature

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone else slightly concerned that we can bait-and-switch bills like this? You can't just push a process past all the reviews and then modify the document at the last second in the hope no-one will notice. If it could be proven that the change was in support of a specific goal (as this one looks to be) then this is horribly dishonest. ...oh wait, we're talking about politics, sorry I forgot.

Exclusivity is a great marketing ploy.

[namhash]

I think this works in Teslas' favour. Nothing better than making something illegal to get the attention of everyone and make them want it more.

Re:Exclusivity is a great marketing ploy.

[RyoShin]

It also works great as a bargaining tactic in the future. "What's that? You would like us to build our second GigaFactory in Detroit? Well, we might consider, but it sure is a pity that your state bans our sales. 'Course, we probably lost all kind of sales revenue from that move, and that will need to be made up somehow..."

Damn Them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck You, State of Michigan Law Makers! Nobody wants to live in your state anyway. And give Wisconsin its land back! You're not fooling anyone!

49/50 Democrats vote against Tesla

[Anonymous Coward]

1 dissent, that still means, at best, 49/50 democrats in the house voted to ban tesla.

More /. bias

[Anonymous Coward]

The summary doesn't say what party Governor Rick Snyder is a part of therefore you know it's DemoRAT.

Richard Dale "Rick" Snyder[2] (born August 19, 1958) is an American politician, business executive, venture capitalist, and accountant. He is the 48th and current Governor of Michigan. A member of the Republican Party,

Well, whatever, then he's a RINO (gotta remain pure) or the exception that proves the rule. Whichever plays the victim card better.

Of course. The car companies are based there.

[gelfling]

Let's face facts, America has hit the reef and is on fire and sinking.

You want evidence? Here it is:

[Chas]

So he asks for evidence, you dont provide any, and you get a +5 mod.

Good work, guys.

https://www.opensecrets.org/lo...

Uber, AirBnB are in the same boat

[mi]

it is just car dealer lobbyist having a stronger voice (and bigger overall wallet) than Tesla

A variety of new businesses offer a new way of doing things — to the chagrin of the incumbents already profiting from the old way.

Nice to see Tesla having full support of /., which Uber and other taxi-replacements, for some reason, do not get...

Tesla This is America Land of the FREE

[Anonymous Coward]

No amount of UNCONSTITUTIONAL Legislation will stop you. You Go, Elon. America rewards ingenuity and competition in our markets.

Use it to their advantage

[Tablizer]

I believe they can create an interesting ad campaign around the problem. Put up billboards near the state border: "BANNED IN [State]! The Car The Gov't Doesn't Want You To Know About". (A state can prevent in-state sales, but not owning.)

Move to Amend needs your support......

[dbreeze]

https://movetoamend.org/

"We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling and other related cases, and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights. "

Y'all help 'em out if you can....

Discount Bob's State Line Fireworks & Alcohol

[Scot Seese]

..Self explanatory.

Democrats and Rinos

[Anonymous Coward]

Democrats and Rinos passed that hastily revised and snuck through law in Michigan. If Governor Snyder were not such a Rino himself he would probably refuse to sign a law that was put forth in a bait and switch way (the modified version signed by 49 of the 50 Democrats in the House, by the way)

Re:You could at least tell us when TFA is paywalle

[Sabriel]

Editors: You could at least warn us that we won't be able to participate in constructive discussion of the featured article without paying.

Oh, the irony. Congratulations, you now have an idea of how the Michigan public were treated.

Come to NZ

[Anonymous Coward]

HUH?

you're part of the US aren't you? or is it just your government bending over for more Hobbit movies?

Michigan Judicial System, now with Illiteracy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sec. 14. (1) A manufacturer shall not do any of the following:

(i) Sell any new motor vehicle directly to a retail customer other than through franchised dealers, unless the retail
customer is a nonprofit organization or a federal, state, or local government or agency.

This subdivision does not prohibit a manufacturer from providing information to a consumer for the purpose of marketing or facilitating the sale of new motor vehicles or from establishing a program to sell OR offer to sell new motor vehicles through franchised new motor vehicle dealers that sell and service new motor vehicles produced by the manufacturer.

Well, dude, lemme tell ya, man

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't matter if you understand or not. I tried telling them the very same thing when they came for my grow-op!

Which other CEO

[future assassin]

in history managed to fuck with the system in suck a positive way? It's so frereshing.

DIY Trolling right here people!

[Anonymous Coward]

So in other words, your entire original post was a full-on troll assault which is why you were so specific in your criteria. You know your question can't be answered as presented so the only reason to post something as stupid as that is because you're emotionally and/or financially invested in Tesla's failure. No other way to look at it once we've read your responses. Also, exactly in tune with what you're harping on others about. Typical hypocritical BS.

Et tu, Brute?

[barakn]

Republicans treat Capitalism like Julius Ceasar. They publicly praise it but then stab it to death in the Senate.

State trade war. Let's go.

[Snufu]

Tesla sales banned in Michigan? OK. Ford and General Motors sales banned in California. California's auto market is six times the size Michigan's.

indirect sales

[l3v1]

"the legality of a manufacturer-owned dealership"

I understand that sometimes a manufacturer doesn't want to deal with the upkeep related to a self-owned dealership chain. However, I don't understand why it shouldn't do it, if it wants to do it. Oh well, I understand, but I don't 'understand', since it's a stupid law (i.e., franchise laws related to vehicle sales). Who the hell care about protecting franchises? Yes, stupid question, obviously lots of people care, they're just not common people like you or me. The best compromise would be to allow any manufacturer to sell directly, if they want to, and let franchises survive by the rules of the 'loved' capitalist market rules - if they can't make enough profit, let them die off, simple as that. They can't beat manufacturer prices? Hell, who cares, I wouldn't mind buying cheaper cars. They could beat the prices? That'd be great, I'd buy from them. Unfortunately things are never that easy, but it would be nice if they would be, for a change.

People are very quick to blame the auto lobby...

[stealth.c]

People are very quick to blame the automotive lobby for buying the Michigan government, but there would be nothing to buy if the Michigan politicians weren't already whores.

Link

[synapse7]

How about a link to the Tesla article.

http://www.teslamotors.com/blo...

Sad

[Anonymous Coward]

What is sad is that we all know that politician hands are being greased. What is sadder is that no investigation will ever occur and non major media outlets will bother with an investigation.

I think I have an idea for a web site.

Irrelavent mod-undo post, blah blah

[Anonymice]

Whoops. Mis-mod. Why aren't we able to edit our mods? *grumble*

Re:You could at least tell us when TFA is paywalle

[Anonymous Coward]

From the featured article:

Get the Full Story: Digital + Print $12 for 12 Weeks. [ Subscribe Now ]

Editors: You could at least warn us that we won't be able to participate in constructive discussion of the featured article without paying.

I have a subscription, so no problem. Apparently you want something for free?

what?

[SuperDre]

The bill was modified without any opportunity for public comment

How is that even possible in a real democracy?
This is just illegal IMHO..
But then also comes to mind, why can't a car manufacturer have it's own "dealer", but a company like Apple can?

Re:You could at least tell us when TFA is paywalle

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that it wasn't made clear that people wouldn't be able to read the article, and that the article being paywall'd was not made clear beforehand, but obviously that is far more difficult than "just want free shit" to grasp, which says something about you, no?

Re:You could at least tell us when TFA is paywalle

[tepples]

To which publications are Slashdot users expected to subscribe in order to participate in Slashdot?

been there...

[gzuckier]

I recall long ago, maybe the 80s, Porsche wanted to switch from dealerships to factory stores, and got roundly beaten up for it.

Re:Discount Bob's State Line Fireworks & Alcoh

[Anonymous Coward]

All it explains is that you don't get the situation. There is a Michigan fireworks online store that will ship to states that ban firework sales. And it is 100% legit:

General Questions

        Q: My State does not allow fireworks to be sold without a permit to store and use fireworks items. How is US Fireworks able to ship fireworks to me without breaking the law?

        A: As a seller of fireworks, we are required to comply with Federal law and the regulations for our State. As a purchaser of fireworks, the responsibility for following your State laws falls upon you, not us.

        Under Federal law, all of the consumer fireworks we sell are legal. These fireworks have been tested by laboratories, such as AFSL, and meet the requirements of US laws. Because the transaction is considered interstate commerce, US Fireworks is subject to Federal law. However, as a purchaser of fireworks, you are obliged to abide by your State and local laws. Additionally, you agree to do this each time you purchase fireworks from us and accept our Terms and Conditions.

http://www.usfireworks.biz/faq...

AFAIK, in all of these Tesla cases, the individual of that offending state can contact Tesla, buy one, and arrange delivery. That doesn't make marketing bans a good thing. However, it is not a sales ban. It would be as if you were allowed to buy MJ, but nobody could market it or put it on a Michigan store shelf. You got to ship it in. Of course MJ and fireworks will run into some legal hassles for the purchaser. The Tesla will not.