Slashdot Mirror
Tesla vs. Car Dealers: the Lobbyist Went Down To Georgia
McGruber writes The Atlanta Journal Constitution (AJC) newspaper's Jim Galloway has an update on the behind-the-scenes battles over who can sell you a new car: "Traditional car dealers are in the midst of a legal fight to push Tesla, the fledgling California electric car company, out of Georgia. Never mind that metro Atlanta is one of the hottest markets for electric vehicles in the nation. Signs point to a parallel battle in the General Assembly. Last week, the National Automobile Dealers Association began trolling for sympathetic lawmakers. While Georgia dealers say they have "no plans" to revisit an anti-Tesla bill that failed last year, Tesla is preparing a defense. It has already hired one of the top lobbying firms in Atlanta."
The Georgia Automobile Dealers Association wields considerable influence in the state Capitol; the AJC determined that the Georgia Auto Dealers Association (GADA) had made over $600,000 in recent campaign contributions to state lawmakers. Despite those contributions, a bill to boot Tesla from Georgia mysteriously died during last year's legislative session. While no legislator would claim credit for killing the bill, Galloway noted that Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, who presides over the Senate, drives a Nissan Leaf.
The Georgia Automobile Dealers Association wields considerable influence in the state Capitol; the AJC determined that the Georgia Auto Dealers Association (GADA) had made over $600,000 in recent campaign contributions to state lawmakers. Despite those contributions, a bill to boot Tesla from Georgia mysteriously died during last year's legislative session. While no legislator would claim credit for killing the bill, Galloway noted that Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, who presides over the Senate, drives a Nissan Leaf.
So much for "free market" and "competition". Screw that old fashioned shit, let's get back to territory protection and arbitrary monopolies to screw over the custom... I mean, to protect the customer and ensure the highest possible quality.
No, you're not encouraged to try to find out how it should increase quality and create the best product for you when a monopolist can pretty much sell you any crap and you have to buy it, lacking any options.
Politicians? You expect politicians to do anything against that? For real? They're doing exactly the same and benefit from the same monopolizing, anti-competitive mechanisms in their area, you honestly expect them to do something against what they learned is good for them?
Face it, we're fucked.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I have friends who have worked as IT consultants in Detroit. Their inside story is that NADA is more powerful than the automakers. It is not that the auto makers are saints, but the laws governing data sharing between the dealers and the auto makers is very heavily biased in favor of dealers. Even very minor data gathering projects have to go through several layers of approval from NADA. NADA is very suspicious of the automatkers.
There is very good reason for the strained relationship. The automakers would dearly love to ditch the dealership model of sales and go for direct sales. The auto makers believe the dealers are acting in bad faith and against the interests of the makers. Many dealerships are actually selling cars from different vendors. Even when the dealerships are nominally different they are owned by same clan or extended family in a market. They demand the automakers to cut deals with them and they are not above promoting one maker to punish another maker. The present set up is so biased in favor of the dealers, if it at all it is possible to ditch them, the auto makers will boot them in no time.
What NADA is really afraid of is setting a precedent allowing Tesla to sell cars directly breaking their monopoly of access to auto buyers. Americans love cars. Automobile is the second most expensive thing a person buys, after home. (Slowly slipping into third place, behind college tuition). Still car buying is the most unsatisfactory part of car buying. We can thank NADA and its selfish policies for this anomaly. Once Tesla breaks the dike, so NADA believes, all automakers will sue for equal access to the market and the dealerships will be at a huge disadvantage.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
It's like we're not even trying to hide anymore how bribes work in this country. Saying that the association holds influence, and then backing up that claim with exactly how much they've "donated"... Payola is still illegal, prostitution is still illegal, yet, bribing politicians is considered par for the course. Business as usual. I think it's time we called politicians in America what they are. Whores. And they will turn tricks for the measliest of sums.
You fail at reading comprehension. In this case, it is the car dealers who are trying to introduce new regulations that would disadvantage Tesla.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Lobbying, is corruption clear and simple. They should jail everybody connected to it.
When you do it in the US, we call it lobbying. When you do it in a foreign country, we call it bribery.
You're not seeing the issue. It's not other automakers wanting to keep Tesla out, it's the dealerships that want to keep them out. And as useless middle men always do, they are fighting hard and dirty. Just like the record companies are.
If you don't think the bigger automakers are pulling for Tesla, you're wrong. They would love to be able to sell direct and/or put up their own retail stores. They wouldn't have to rely on, at this point completely useless and frequently scummy, middle men to sell their products.
What? You're saying there are no independent Tesla dealers? Then it isn't even the same industry we are talking about.
Yes it is. If Tesla prevails, other car manufacturers will move to the same direct sales model. Long ago, car dealers actually served a purpose. Today, they are just rent-seeking leeches.
All those dealers are pissing in their pants that they won't be able to as easily provide "value" such as $1000 detail/wax jobs, $10/gallon gas, and ridiculously structured "protection plans"
Lobbying is the act of telling an official how to vote by making a convincing argument.. Bribery is paying money for a vote or action.
How else would regulators and lawmakers get input on policy?
If you're going to pass a law that effects, say, orange juice production then it's important to consult with Dole Food Company to find out what the impact of the proposed law will actually be. Nobody else knows, and you can't just guess.
Now, you know they're going to give you biased testimony. If you're trying to decide what drinks to subsidize for low-income school lunches, the (completely legitimate) scientist from Dole is going to tell you that sugar isn't the greatest for kids, but that the sugar in orange juice isn't as bad as that in Coca Cola because it's from oranges not corn. And the other nutrients in orange juice totally make up for the disadvantages of fruit sugar - you wouldn't want those disadvantaged kids getting scurvy.
The guy from Coke is going to tell you that all sugar is the same. It's just a carbohydrate, and in fact it raises blood sugar less by weight than the hot dog rolls the kids are drinking it with.
And there's no real way to get an unbiased voice. You could use government funds to fly a scientist out to the hearing, but then you have to pick who to fly out. You're a lawmaker, and you're not going to be able to pick a sugar metabolism scientist. That's not your field. All you can do is try to find a stakeholder to suggest someone. Who are you going to call? The American Medical Association now finally might send someone who says "kids shouldn't be drinking sugar", but how do you balance that against the orange juice guys and chocolate milk guys saying that the sugar isn't a big deal compared to the other nutrients in the drinks?
If you create a government science board, it'll have to hire established scientists. They got funding somewhere for their previous research. Unless you want to fund someone to find out why sugar is bad, you won't find someone who will say it. And then all you've got is the thing you asked for - it's obviously not worth anything.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
And it's a complete coincidence that the most convincing arguments are frequently followed up with large campaign donations... There's no link at all.
Except when God fearing, free marketing, red states can use them to stifle competition.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
"Independent GM/Ford/Toyota/whatever dealers don't want to compete with direct manufacturing sales. And they should not have to."
Maybe my naivety comes from not being American but... why not?
And providing they in fact shouldn't compete with direct sales, what's the benefit for the customer about having dealers instead of direct sales?
But money should not be the controlling factor for access to those legislators and legislatures.
If you can afford to go to those $50,000 plate campaign events, you get more access to the politicians and they listen to you more.
Our Constitution is designed to make sure only the wealthy elite can influence government. It was designed that way in 1789 and nobody should be surprised that it's only gotten worse.
You are welcome on my lawn.
As an American, I have no fucking clue other than they don't like competition.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
The reason the laws existed in the first place was because at the dawn of the industry the franchise fees were used for capital by the manufactures. Without the legal protections car makers could simply run the franchisees out of business once they became big enough. To a similar extent when foreign makers moved into the USA the franchise fees helped build the infrastructure.
Now we have a conundrum where Tesla doesn't see itself needing the dealers and is going on it's own. A large chunk of that is based on most buyers are going to be in big cities. They only need need 1 or 2 showrooms per state for the foreseeable future. They don't see the need to build out the showroom network which would require having franchisees. For Tesla the Franchisee system would certainly add another 3-4K to the cost of each car. They'll never get the model 3 to fit into the expected price range going that route.
At the same time you can't just get rid of all the dealer protections because Ford, GM, Toyota, Honda, etc would be more than happy to cherry pick the most profitable areas for corporate dealerships. Those dealerships are owed that exclusivity because they invested in the company at the beginning. I personally don't think the dealers give a crap about selling Tesla, but they foresee the big auto makers suing to get rid of franchise laws if Tesla is allowed an exemption.