Tesla Faces Off Against Car Dealers In Another State: Ohio 214
cartechboy writes "We've seen Tesla run into regulatory issues in Texas. And North Carolina. This time, it's Ohio, where car dealers are playing an entertainingly brazen brand of hardball. The Ohio Dealers Association is backing an anti-Tesla amendment to Ohio Senate Bill 137--which turns out to be an unrelated, uncontroversial proposal about drivers moving left when they see emergency vehicles (The bill is headed for adoption.) The sudden and subtle amendment would ban Tesla from selling its electric cars directly to customers, who place their orders online with the company after learning about the Model S in company-owned stores. A hearing on the amendment was suddenly scheduled for today; Tesla is fighting back by outlining the economic benefits to Ohio--after taking some legislators for a ride in the Model S (a Tesla tactic that has worked before)."
How can Ohio even do this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Tesla purchases are interstate commerce. Constitutionally and practically that's a matter of Federal jurisdiction.
Re:At least... (Score:5, Interesting)
Car dealerships practically own(and frequently are) local politicians, in a way mega-corporations wish they could do to the U.S. federal government. Being a local petty millionaire who can throw a "fund-raiser" is all it takes for the smaller offices.
Sounds familiar (Score:5, Interesting)
Here in B.C. we had a stink a few years ago over privately imported vehicles from Japan. Under Canadian law you can privately import anything you like if it's over 15 years old, and in the mid-noughties a lot of interesting vehicles started to turn 15. Since they are essentially worthless in Japan, but well looked-after, they're a bargain for anybody who wants a used car. Japan has made a major industry of exporting their used cars. Unlike many other jurisdictions, cars with the steering wheel on the "wrong" side are road-legal here.
The car dealers threw a fit. They claimed that right-hand drive vehicles were the enemy of all that is free and right and holy, but were never to adequately explain why. I wondered why they were concerned about their ability to compete with 15 year old used cars. Again, they were never able to adequately explain why.
It's died down. For now. But you never know what they're going to try next.
I bought a 1992 Mitsubishi L300 Delica in 2007. I love it. A touch expensive to run, but ridiculously practical and it will go anywhere with shift-on-the-fly 4WD. It also has a delightfully quirky style.
...laura
Good ol' boy dealer network still strong (Score:2, Interesting)
Clearly there are some who would like to protect the good ol' boy dealer network: a couple of years ago, I was planning a purchase of a Toyota Sienna, and when I was unhappy with the treatment I was getting from our local dealer when it came time to negotiate a price, I decided to call around to dealers within a couple hours' drive to see what other options there were. One dealer two hours away returned my message, and my wife was unlucky enough to answer. He chewed her out for not "respecting" the dealer network, and how dare we call around to try to get the price, anyway? He said wouldn't sell a car to us after that, even if we wanted to pay the sticker price!
My wife was pretty shaken up about it, and I always meant to write to Toyota to complain. But in the end, we found a dealer three hours away who gave us a good price in an email quote. When I took the quote to our local dealer, they wouldn't budge on the price, so we ended up driving to the other dealer and save about $1500. They lost our sale.
Maybe if more people shopped around at different dealers, their stranglehold on the market might loosen a bit?
Re:Sounds familiar (Score:4, Interesting)
Looked into these myself at one point. Two amendments. Not only do they seem not to want to compete with 15 year old cars, but 15 year old cars with both the cost of freight across the PACIFIC OCEAN and import taxes that are associated with them. Not to mention (as you probably noticed) trying to get part or service for something exotic (at least here).
Considering most people that are interested in these things, are specifically interested in obtaining a car you can't usually get outside of Japan anyway. Doesn't sound like a big crossover of lost business.
Typical knee jerk reaction to anything that *might* threaten their old antiquated business model (even if it doesn't and never could).
Re:At least... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Honest politicians hard at work (Score:5, Interesting)
That's just it...if you make it a law then it's legal. Then you challenge the law and get it overturned...then they write a new one permitting whatever was used to overturn the old one ad infinitum until you get a constitutional challenge which this won't rise to.
I agree though it's a brazen, monopolistic power grab by the dealers. Remind you of the MPAA and RIAA? Their business model gets challenged by...reality and life...so they fight for laws and sue sue sue. All to the detriment of their customers.
I can see why they're bent out of shape...they're used to a locked in business model that basically guarantees profits. Unfortunately buying votes indirectly is still ridiculously easy as is adding things to unrelated bills about to be passed into law. I can only see that trend getting worse...here's a bill to explicitly outlaw shooting infants in a stand your ground state. Rider to it also prohibits you from selling books not approved by the writers guild. Just you wait...
Re:At least... (Score:5, Interesting)
Incorrect, it is NOT exclusive. The fed has supremacy when it passes a law, but states CAN reach inter-state agreements about many things: liquor laws, metro finance agreements, etc.
Virginia has reached agreements with Maryland and DC regarding who pays for Metro costs, how the metro runs, who regulates it, etc-- thats not an exclusively federal issue.
Re:So much for capitalism (Score:4, Interesting)
There's no such thing as a free market.
Someone will always jockey for a position of dominance, because that's how capitalism works. The result is monopolies, robber barons and corporate oligarchy. Or it can go to the other extreme, where all trade is strictly regulated and controlled by third parties (eg governments). The result is the ideal case of socialism where everything is effectively owned and operated by everyone.
The reality in practice is always a mix of these two; some combination of dominant corporate influences and government regulations that attempt to keep them from running completely roughshod over the economy. This in no way resembles the "free market" that everyone learns about in high school economics class because that's just a simplified, idealized example and not a tenable economic model.
=Smidge=
Re:time to make the call (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder how often when a bill comes to the attention of a legislator does he actually think, "what do I honestly think is the right thing to do here?" Do you think ever? Or is it 100% "hmmm, which side of this bill's backers is paying me more?"
Re:Ignorance (Score:4, Interesting)
Ron Paul is wrong about economic matters. There was a head-to-head between him and Paul Krugman; it's so very rare to have a politician have his ass handed to him quite so hard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEoGKpnutyA [youtube.com]