White House Punts On Petition To Allow Tesla Direct Sales 382
First time accepted submitter neanderslob (1207704) writes Last Friday, over a year after the petition gained the required signatures for a response, the White House rejected a We the People petition to "Allow Tesla Motors to sell directly to consumers in all 50 states." The letter went on to defend the administration by citing their initiatives "in promoting vehicle efficiency." In response, Tesla is firing back, blasting the White House for a lack of leadership on the issue and stating "138,469 people signed the petition asking the White House to allow Tesla Motors to sell directly to consumers in all 50 states. More than a year later, at 7.30pm EST on Friday as most of America prepared for the weekend, the White House released its disappointing response to those people. Rather than seize an opportunity to promote innovation and support the first successful American car company to be started in more than a century, the White House issued a response that was even more timid than its rejection of a petition to begin construction of a Death Star."
There's a legal issue here: the executive can't just wave state law aside. But they could suggest Congress write new laws instead of just noting that Congress would need to take action.
What? (Score:5, Funny)
An internet petition that went nowhere? Unpossible!
Seriously, the White House petition site is just PR. I'm no Obama hater but anyone who thinks that would ever be an effective way to influence policy is probably still sitting on the edge of their seat waiting for Firefly to come back on television.
Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No Death Star so I tried to Kickstarter one.. how the hell do I exploit this for lols?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you build it, point it at Washington. ;-)
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
Did you read the response? It's great.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/isnt-petition-response-youre-looking
"Why would we spend countless taxpayer dollars on a Death Star with a fundamental flaw that can be exploited by a one-man starship?"
Re: (Score:2)
Lazy government contractors didn't even bother to install blast shielding with the ray shielding.
Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)
But this would be the first time that a petition would actually demand that the USA federal government actually does what it is SUPPOSED to do, to force the USA government actually to apply the interstate commerce law correctly.... This is what the interstate commerce clause is meant for: use federal power to force States to stop anti-business practices that hurt businesses and people when States attempt to destroy competition by preventing businesses and people from engaging in interstate commerce. States are not supposed to be able to prevent businesses and individuals from competing with one another, that is the purpose of the federal interstate commerce law. Not to force people to buy products that they would not buy without government force applied to them by to prevent States from destroying free market capitalism, to prevent States from denying competition.
Of-course forever now the federal government and States engaged in anti-competitive practices that they accuse businesses of, which in reality are the product of the government corruption and collusion. Mandating and requiring business licenses for people to engage in commerce is the anti-competitive practice that needs to be stopped. Mandating and requiring that businesses abide by government rules and regulations is the anti-competitive practice that needs to be stopped. Income taxes are not only a horrible economic policy, it is also a way to segregate businesses into those, that have access to government officials and those that cannot compete because they are not getting special treatment.
Basically this petition is the first petition that I hear about that actually demands the USA government to behave Constitutionally where it concerns trade and business and individual freedoms. Of-course the government will pay 0 attention to it.
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you. For once, this would be a legitimate use of the Interstate Commerce Clause.
Clearly, this *is* the purview of Congress, not the President, but all that the White House needs to do to make the petitioners happy is have one of its pet Congresscritters introduce legislation.
It seems to me that the state regulations banning such sales are an intrusion upon the prerogatives of Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Otherwise, stamp a form letter in response and move on.
Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)
Dear Mr. President, Please play lots of golf.
Dear Mr. President, You seem overworked. Please take another vacation.
Dear Mr. President, Please give another speech calling Republicans meanies.
That worked for Clinton, only non-suck president (Score:5, Informative)
The only president of the last twenty years who is generally considered to have been reasonably good is Clinton. What did Clinton do? Not much. Pretty much, he entered the White House during a time of economic growth and got a blowjob. For that (doing nothing) he's considered to be better than Bush Jr. or Obama. Before Clinton, George HW Bush wasn't bad and what did he do? Domestically, pretty much nothing. He was all foreign policy - START I, Noriega, beginning NAFTA.
Obama's legacy probably would be better if he'd play even more golf, throw another blowout party, and stop messing with the country.
Re: (Score:3)
There's certainly hope that we can get another Kennedy/Reagan/Eisenhower* next time. Maybe if we try to choose based on COMPETENCE rather than just whoever most extremely mirrors our favored ideology.
* (Not an actual Kennedy of course, the good one is dead. HW Bush / Bush Jr. should have taught us something about electing a guy because he was related to a decent president.)
Good fucking luck. It's looking like 2016 is going to be Hillary (yet ANOTHER person who's only qualification for president is that she is related to one) and whatever republican manages to out-crazy the rest of them. It's going to be yet another episode of giant douche vs. shit sandwich. You can vote for the corporate tool or the corporate tool.
Re: (Score:2)
... waiting for Firefly to come back on television.
Wait, what? Firefly isnt coming back???
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
People forget that United States is a Democratic Republic. Not a democracy.
Not all popular idea's will go out or should go out, just because the majority wills it. The point of a Democratic Republic, is the Citizens vote for people who will make the decisions, then these people should take a look at all the factors and make one.
However this hasn't been working well, because of the Party system, and too many voters are getting stuck on party ideals and less on voting for the person who would take your intere
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you recognize that, then why aren't you an Obama hater? This is emblematic of Obama: make a great public show about being a man of the people, and then surreptitiously ignore them.
I.e., he's playing us all for saps.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also strange that your criticism is completely ass-backwards, since the request was that states not be able to exclude competition, and the status quo is what you're complaining about.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I agree with you. But that's what makes the whole petition thing a great PR machine. I'd argue that almost any change people are requesting will require at least some level of approval from the legislature so Obama can say "Oh, I agree and am as passionate about (insert topic here) as you are, but that do-nothing congress, well, sorry but we can't do much..."
It's not that it's Obama's fault but I find the whole thing disingenuous at best, similar to his campaign messages* that got everyone excited enough
For us dummies.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:For us dummies.... (Score:5, Informative)
Not an easy read but a good backgrounder on this, which also seems to be a Department of Justice advocation of direct manufacturer sales:
http://www.justice.gov/atr/pub... [justice.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Most states, prodded perhaps by dealer associations, have forbidden auto manufacturers from selling directly to the public. New York, Ohio and Texas have been among the most prominent battlegrounds so far.
No need to qualify (Score:5, Informative)
Most states, prodded perhaps by dealer associations, have forbidden auto manufacturers from selling directly to the public.
There is no "perhaps" about it. Auto dealer associations are entirely the reason - no need to qualify your statement. They are parasitic middlemen and they know they have a good deal going. They cost both customers and the automakers money. They should have to compete and provide value just like any other business. There should be no legal prohibition against me buying a car directly from Tesla, GM, Toyota or any other car maker if I want. If the dealer can provide me extra value then fine but if they cannot (and most cannot) then they should disappear like the obsolete businesses they are. There is no rational justification I have heard for protecting their business model at my expense. Perhaps you know of a good reason but frankly for me if auto dealers disappear tomorrow it won't be too soon.
Re:No need to qualify (Score:5, Insightful)
Most states, prodded perhaps by dealer associations, have forbidden auto manufacturers from selling directly to the public.
There is no "perhaps" about it. Auto dealer associations are entirely the reason - no need to qualify your statement. They are parasitic middlemen and they know they have a good deal going. They cost both customers and the automakers money. They should have to compete and provide value just like any other business. There should be no legal prohibition against me buying a car directly from Tesla, GM, Toyota or any other car maker if I want. If the dealer can provide me extra value then fine but if they cannot (and most cannot) then they should disappear like the obsolete businesses they are. There is no rational justification I have heard for protecting their business model at my expense. Perhaps you know of a good reason but frankly for me if auto dealers disappear tomorrow it won't be too soon.
Yup. It rather like being required to head to your nearest brick-and-mortar travel agency to book a flight and hotel and pay them their middleman fee, rather than going to united.com and tripadvisor,com (or whatever your preferred vendor is).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Is the opposition coming just from the dealers? Or is it coming from the established manufacturers by way of dealers?
Many industries sell only through distributors, dealers, or otherwise "authorized" retail outlets. The company I work for is in the HVAC industry. We only sell to our dealers and never directly to the end consumer. I don't know of any major HVAC manufacturer that sel
Re:For us dummies.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sales tax would still come from direct sales.
A sane local politician changing the laws to allow direct sales would be freeing him or herself from the shackled of this powerful lobby and would not be losing any revenue.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Traditional car companies see Tesla as a threat..
That's the biggest problem/misconception about the whole debate. These laws were put in place well before Tesla ever existed. Any car company, regardless of name or technology, has always had to deal them. Direct sales itself is the threat. If people want change, they need to get off of the notion that this is about Tesla and learn a little more of the history behind the law. They need to listen carefully to those who make arguments in favor of these laws. Then you can make a rational case against it. Argui
Re: (Score:3)
NY dealers have Tesla ban in sights [nypost.com]
It is/was legal but be
The real reason (Score:5, Informative)
The real reason that the dealerships care isn't about Tesla at all.
Dealerships have worked to create laws that forbid car manufacturers from selling direct to consumers. And if Tesla gets around that, then Ford, GM, etc. will be hot on their tracks and dealerships will see significant impact from this. In the age of the internet anyone would become finally able to purchase goods from the car manufacturers. Their way of life would die off.
That's why they fight Tesla like the fate of the world is at stake.
Re: (Score:2)
....can someone briefly summarize like we are in third grade (OK, maybe junior high) why Tesla can't sell their vehicles anywhere they damn well please? I don't follow car news so I don't know (and I'm asking here because I figure I am not the only one).
I'm still struggling to understand why this is a problem with the current offering from Tesla.
I've seen Tesla cars on the road in my state, so we can safely assume DOT has authorized them for US road use, and therefore are legal to drive in any state.
Given that fact, I seriously doubt that anyone who can afford a $100,000 Tesla really has a problem transporting themselves to pick up said car, regardless of limited dealership locations.
Hasn't really seemed to hurt Tesla sales so far. Doesn't hurt the likes
Re: (Score:2)
I'd imagine one of the biggest factors/problems/differences between buying out-of-state Ferraris/Lamborghinis and out-of-state Teslas is the fact that you can refuel the Ferrari or Lamborghini basically anywhere along the way back to your state. The Tesla? Not so much. You either need to plan charging stops, or get it towed/hauled to within X miles of your home (where X depends on the model of Tesla, obviously).
Re: (Score:3)
The issue is Tesla is not the limited number of Tesla dealerships, it's that Tesla's business model doesn't include ANY dealerships.
You don't go to a dealer to look at a Tesla and then order one after a long draw out conversation about pricing, you go to the Tesla website and custom build the car you want and order it. Even their brick and mortar locations (more likely a mall kiosk) are generally only information booth style setups to direct people to their website to complete the ordering process.
They don
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a list of reasons. 100 years ago, car compa (Score:3)
Basically, 100 years ago the big mean car companies were sometimes mean to local dealers. Here's a list of things dealers claimed that manufacturers did, as codified in New York law:
http://ypdcrime.com/vt/article... [ypdcrime.com]
If the car dealer fought back, the manufacturer would either a) threaten to open a new dealership next door or b) stop delivering cars to the dealership.
Like laws that force companies to work with unions, these laws force manufacturers to work with local dealers. If the manufacturer cut off the
Not a shocker. (Score:2)
Really Kids? (Score:2)
You kids are really still posting/signing petitions on the White House site?
Even after several years of them all but telling us "this is purely for show, we will never honor any of the requests in these?"
There's a point where the definition of insanity intersects with the definition of absolutely goddamn brainlessness. That point is, apparently, the We The People petition site.
Ha, made me laugh. (Score:2)
But they could suggest Congress write new laws instead of just noting that Congress would need to take action.
"Congress take action" - Ha.
Online petitions with consequences? (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with the petition is that it has no consequences.
Would it help if petitioners agreed to vote *against* the incumbent president's party at the next election if the issue isn't addressed?
Some of the petitions net upwards of a quarter-million signatures. Is that enough votes to get Washington to take notice?
only 138,469 people? (Score:2)
lol
Congress write laws???? (Score:2)
Especially laws that would place the interests of the individual ahead of the interests of an established industry cartel? That's a laugh.
Not a duty of the Executive Branch (Score:5, Insightful)
These White House petitions drive me a little nuts. I appreciate that they bring publicity to an issue, but they also demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US Government is designed to work. The issue is state and local laws. These laws don't contradict federal laws. What do people want the President to do about it? If people are upset about their local laws they need to work at the local level - petitioning state law makers.
The argument could be made that this is interstate commerce. Great, then work with your national representatives to propose federal legislation that would overrule the local laws. It very likely would have to stand up to a court challenge, but the courts have been exceptionally liberal in their interpretation of interstate commerce. If the local governments fail to comply THEN the executive branch will get involved in enforcement.
It seems like people want the Executive and Judicial branches making the laws. This isn't how it's supposed to happen - for good reason. This reflects not only a bad approach to government, but it is also a sign of just how completely broken Congress is. How said that the only ones who seem able to push any sort of legislation through Congress are big businesses. Everyone else is stuck looking for some sort of alternative. Sadly, those alternatives, should they end up successful, will just result in a less representative, more authoritarian government.
Re:Not a duty of the Executive Branch (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly. Congress has to write a law saying, "By Constitutional law, we are tasked to facilitate interstate commerce. This is impeding interstate commerce; therefor, the new law says: stop doing that." Then the President can point and say, "Go Go Federal Agents!" and any lawsuits raised by Tesla can get to the Federal Courts where the Judge is obligated to say, "Your state laws are in conflict with Federal regulations which are supported by powers Constitutionally granted to the Federal government, therefor the Federal regulations trump your State laws."
Re: (Score:3)
but they also demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US Government is designed to work.
So do the majority of the comments on this article.
the executive can't just wave state law aside??? (Score:2, Insightful)
How many times has the President (any President) done exactly this? Since Jackson famously told the Supremes "now go and enforce it" the Executive has been able to give the Judicial the finger. How many times in recent memory has the Executive waived, changed, or broken existing laws regarding the new Health Care act?
Re: (Score:3)
How many times has the President (any President) done exactly this? Since Jackson famously told the Supremes "now go and enforce it" the Executive has been able to give the Judicial the finger. How many times in recent memory has the Executive waived, changed, or broken existing laws regarding the new Health Care act?
The problem is that this isn't a federally enforced law, it's a state enforced law. Obama can tell federal agents to no longer enforce any of these laws, but that won't change anything in since the feds aren't the ones supporting these laws to begin with.
Basically you'd be down to what the government had to do to force racial integration: Send in the army to keep Tesla dealerships open and protect the Tesla dealerships against state law enforcement. While I'd like to see you, you can understand why that mig
Re:the executive can't just wave state law aside?? (Score:5, Funny)
One legit use of the commerce clause (Score:5, Insightful)
Well now, here's an actual legitimate use of the Commerce Clause; but Congress won't use it. Every podunk dealer that ever contributed to their campaigns would ring their phones off the hook, as well as actual corporate lobby from GM, etc.
Jurisdiction: This is actually a great reply (Score:3)
Obama gave the only reply he could. It essentially says "I don't control that, I can't help you. Sorry."
When your local state passes a bad law, don't cry to the federal government. Call your local representatives and fix the law yourself. It's easier to get local laws changed, and that is the appropriate level to do it.
Unfortunately, this is a state's issue. (Score:3)
However, the auto dealership lobby is a serious nut to crack. With elections coming, I'm not sure many politicians are going to put their necks out so they can be labeled as against local businesses.
Move to Canada (Score:5, Interesting)
Move Tesla to Canada. The rules of NAFTA trump this local dealer baloney.
Where are free market republicans? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, they were on the free market... (Score:3)
Then they got bought and are no longer on the market.
Kit car (Score:4, Interesting)
Tesla could sell the car as a kit where you order one or more of N components to complete the car.
Eg, the car body, the batteries, the clip-on steering wheel.
Sounds like (Score:2)
unfair restraint of trade. Auto Dealers are NOT necessary.
The American way? (Score:3)
WTF? I know US has its problems, and I doubt I'd want to live there, but isn't it supposed to be a free market economy? Isn't this (not being allowed to sell legal goods to people) about as anti-American as it gets? What happaned to "the Land of the Free" etc? Free, except not free to buy a car?
This is not the President's job (Score:3)
Well, at least Obama's record is perfect. (Score:3)
Total number of substantive results from the petition site? Zero.
Re: (Score:2)
If he can declare war without congressional approval...
When did he do that?
Re:He cant or wont? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so he means Obama and several other administrations over the last ~60-70 years. Seemed specific to Obama to me in the OP but put your way I guess their's a point to be made in there somewhere...
Re: (Score:2)
There have been "authorizations to use military forces in peacekeeping operations in compliance with guidelines of UN Resolutions" but not a "Declaration" by the Executive and in the eyes of the law there is a pretty gigantic distinction (Morally, there is none).
States do have some degree of sovereignty when it comes to makin
Re: (Score:2)
There is something to be said for the Interstate Commerce Clause placing this into Federal jurisdiction rather than State, but that would be a very massive change and would probably be better suited for the Supreme Court rather than either the Legislative or Judicial branches.
Finally a legitimate use for the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the ball is dropped.
Re:He cant or wont? (Score:4, Insightful)
He should tell Congress that Tesla should be blocked from direct sales, that's the only way to ensure that a law allowing direct sales in all 50 states will be passed =)
Re: (Score:3)
... better suited for the Supreme Court rather than either the Legislative or Judicial branches.
It doesn't work like that. The Supreme Court can only rule on cases brought before it. So someone has to sue the states to invalidate these laws. Tesla doesn't have the resources, and private companies should not have to individually fight for their basic rights. We all have an interest in competitive markets. The attorney general should sue the states. That's his job, and Obama can and should order him to do it. He's willing to squander billions on subsidies, but unwilling to spend a penny on a sim
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the ones where we had AUMFs issued by congress?
Re: (Score:3)
As a country, the United States has not Declared War against anyone since World War II, it has however by Executive Order by the Commander in Chief gone to war with several countries.
Fixed that for you...
As a country, the United States has not Declared War against anyone since World War II, it has however by Executive Order by the Commander in Chief gone to war with several dozen countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:He cant or wont? (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, it doesn't matter when he or any other President did that.
What really matters is that the ignorant fool of an AC believes that he should be able to do that. It should scare the shit out of everyone that even an AC would think that a President should be able to cast aside state laws with a mere wave of his hand or executive order. That's fucking dictator shit right there.
People have thrown the Dictator charge around and it's been consider kookville, because there has always been some arguable legal construct supporting it. But for anyone to seriously suggest that a President has unilateral discretion over the laws of individual states is scary and should get everyone's attention.
Re: (Score:3)
The American constitution grants their federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce. Laws forbidding an out-of-state manufacturer from selling directly in a state would seem to fall under that category. The constitution does not expressly forbid such activity, so far as I can tell, but it does mean that the federal government has the jurisdiction to override them.
Re: (Score:2)
Laws forbidding an out-of-state manufacturer from selling directly in a state would seem to fall under that category.
Those laws apply to in-state manufacturers as well, AFAIK.
Re: (Score:3)
He should declare war on local car dealers. That'll fix em.
Re:He cant or wont? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah, let's just not have any democrats on local city councils when you lose all the local petty power brokers .
Re:He cant or wont? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Meanwhile,today, if you can afford a $90,000 car, I doubt there are any real impediments to your making that purchase.
That's all very nice and snarky, but Tesla's got a Model E in design with a target sticker price of around $30k US. Wouldn't it be nice to fix the problem now, so in a couple years we don't have to order our Tesla-E via Amazon Prime?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that Elon Musk thought that Car Salesman are typically third rate scum
You mean they aren't? In all seriousness from my experience they mostly range from mildly incompetent to circus carny levels of dodgyness. There has only been one that I had dealt with that I would say was a good guy but that was at a high end dealer.
Re: (Score:2)
> so in a couple years we don't have to order our Tesla-E via Amazon Prime?
Why not? The shipping is free (or at least unmetered)
Interstate commerce and maybe racketeering (Score:2)
Who cares what the WH thinks?
Because what the occupants of the White House think matters. Same with Congress. We don't have to like it but we're idiots if we pretend their opinion doesn't matter. If there is a problem that they can solve and the States are unwilling (wouldn't be the first time) then I'm fine with the Feds taking care of it. I just care that the right thing happens.
Its State Law. Let the voters in each state decide what they want.
State law that may very well interfere with interstate commerce. Auto dealers do not (generally) source their vehicles locally and so you can make a pre
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a big fan of the federal government abusing the interstate commerce clause but this seems like a case where it likely applies..
I don't like the dealer laws either, but I can't be comfortable in setting the threshold of federal commerce intrusion on an issue by issue basis to suit my personal preference. States are already too encumbered. JMHO.
Re:He cant or wont? (Score:4, Insightful)
... why can't he waive state laws?
The last time the president did that, hundreds of thousands of Americans lost their lives in the resulting conflict.
Presidents (and federal officials) can browbeat states into changing state law pretty easily by threatening to revoke federal funds.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And, of course, if Obama suggests congress do something reasonable, they're CERTAINLY not going to wave their arms and scream about what a terrible idea it is, and how it would turn our country into a Socialist state...
Re: (Score:2)
I guess we'll have to wait and see if that day ever arrives.
Re: (Score:2)
Because of more leg room and the Killer Traffic Clearing Device?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought...
You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
You parroted without doing any sort of independent analysis or validation.
Re: (Score:3)
Since when has law, state or otherwise, stopped Obama? Constitution? Nah...He knows better...Obamacare mandates? ( his own fucking law)...nah...its an election year.
seems like prosecutional discretion to me
Drug laws? Nah we won't enforce em.
heard of prohibition? To me drug laws are the same as it, they should be prohibition, so I like to think of him not enforcing them because they are unconstitutional.
Seriously. No matter what side of the isle you're on and if you like the laws or not, the fact that he picks and chooses what to enforce completely undermines the whole idea of "rule of law". The man is the biggest crony Ive ever seen.
Not really.. If law A is unconstitutional, and law B is not, then picking to enforce law B but not law A is the proper thing to do to enforce the constitutional rule of law we have.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When you can't grow feed on your own farm to feed your own animals because somehow the Commerce Clause means that that's taking away some other farmers 'right' to sell you their feed you know the system is beyond screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that's Congress. The Legislative branch would have to produce appropriate legislation. Once legislation exists, the Executive Branch may issue an Executive Order to execute the legislation.