A Raw Deal in Michigan

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/raw-deal-michigan

by lalwanivikas • 12 years ago

347 192 12 years ago

danielhunt• 12 years ago

As an outsider, it really is difficult to understand why these practices are supported/allowed by the public. Is this information even available to people outside of the tech community?

What in the hell is wrong with US politics* that allows for this to happen so blatantly, and so regularly, without any repercussions at all?

* I'm aware that it's not (in general) a US-only problem, but for Tesla and the car dealership world, it seems that this is a real problem

easytiger• 12 years ago

allowed by the public

Well, democracy is largely bullshit so your phrase endears the democratic process with more credit than it is due.

We suppose that our quality of life and our pace of change are side effects of our current leadership process. I personally suppose that is is but a partial input to a more complex contrivance of systems which have led us to where we are.

atlantic3• 12 years ago

Don't be too quick to condemn democracy. Granted, most of the propaganda about the vox populi is false. But its key virtue is that it allows change of government without bloodshed. As Popper said, "We are democrats, not because the majority is always right, but because democratic traditions are the least evil ones of which we know". It's not the best system, but it's probably the least bad one.

flyinglizard• 12 years ago

Anti competitive, interest driven legislative behavior happens everywhere, as does the mixture of money and politics. See the Amazon law in France as an example.

If anything, in the USA citizens seems more aware and active in such cases. The fact there's a constitution as a moral compass doesn't hurt, either.

ohazi• 12 years ago

The problem is that politicians are not accountable to the voting public. They're supposed to be, but it's basically a big joke.

This comment from another one of today's discussions seems particularly fitting here [1]:

> We want to make sure that the incentives of the people in power are aligned with the people who are not in power.
This is really a tough ask. Unless decision makers, i.e., those in power, are accountable, every single day, to those not in power, decision makers will soon align themselves with private, capitalist corporations. You have a multi billion dollar arms manufacturer, oil corporations funding millions to election campaigns of US presidents. And then you have US citizens who get to vote once in five years; we also know that the voting itself can be rigged, public opinion can be swayed and etc., Now, whom do you think would the president side with? Oil corporation or US citizens? The answer is obvious!

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8466080

jmckib4• 12 years ago

The costs of this legislation are distributed across all consumers, while the benefits are concentrated in the hands of a small group of automobile dealers. This gives the dealers a large incentive to lobby politicians, and little incentive for consumers to pay attention and vote accordingly. This is the same reason Uber is facing a lot of flak right now from governments around the world.

On the bright side, in the long run new technologies tend to win out, even though the delays caused by concentrated interests can be quite significant.

One way to fix this problem would be to restrict the scope of government so that politicians simply aren't able to do things like this, no matter how much the automobile industry lobbies them. If there are other solutions I'd be very interested to hear them.

anon13852• 12 years ago

This is the same reason Uber is facing a lot of flak right now from governments around the world.

It isn't though. Governments are in conflict with Uber because of things like Uber drivers not being insured. The German government wants Uber to ensure that their drivers are insured. Uber refused to do that. That is why Uber was 'banned'.

Uninsured drivers is a cost spread across society, but the gains are concentrated with Uber. Exactly the kind of situation where government should be stepping in. People can hand-wave all they like about 'new technology' and 'disruption' but at the end of the day the vasty majority of people in society think drivers should have valid insurance and there is no sign of that opinion shifting. There is no need for a 'fix' to government in this case. It is working as it should.

The fact that Silicon Valley gurus are backing Uber so strongly in their quest to fill our roads with uninsured drivers just makes the rest of the world view them as greedy sociopaths looking to make society more dangerous for their own personal gain. Sadly the rest of the technology sector then gets tainted by this asshole behaviour.

throwawayaway2• 12 years ago

Tesla's rivals are big employers in Michigan. That is also a factor, their employee's have only experienced the positive side of protectionism.

wittekm• 12 years ago

It's possible the Big 3 would actually prefer a Tesla-like direct-to-consumer model; for example, Chrysler tried opening a Chrysler-owned store in LA a few years ago, only to have it shot down by local law.

I'd imagine that if one of the Big 3 started doing direct sales, dealers would stop selling their cars en masse. There's no way for an established manufacturer to stop selling to dealers.

cdnsteve• 12 years ago

Why is it that first world countries have the most unaccountable political systems ever seen? Even here in Canada, Rob Ford anyone?

Here too in Canada we've banned Zenn, a Canadian electric car company - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZENN but we're making prominent bike lanes, go figure.

colomon• 12 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice

CalRobert2• 12 years ago

This may get me downvoted, but I think the problem has more to do with the voters than the politicians. If people took the time to research candidates and issues independently instead of voting for whoever had the loudest ads, we might not see so much money in politics.

Also, they're lazy and they don't care. Nerds on HN do, but talk to normal folks and they just. don't. care. about much of anything political, and they use their horribly inadequate math skills and emotion to make decisions, instead of reason.

TeMPOraL3• 12 years ago

I'm first to call out all the bullshit general population believes in, but in this case I think it is counterproductive to blame people.

Behind all politicians there is a system designed to optimize for deceiving the electorate into believing what the politicians want. Millions if not billions of dollars and man-hours are spent every year to improve that system (that's not counting the private research branch known as advertising industry). Your average citizen Joe doesn't stand a chance here.

The fact that general population doesn't care about important issues (hint: what's on the news is mostly irrelevant) is a different thing and it hurts me, but I have no clue what we can do with it.

danielweber2• 12 years ago

Also, they're lazy and they don't care. Nerds on HN do,

This is, at best, silly. It's not like people on HN are any more informed on politics than the average person. They think they're more informed, which makes for worse political discussion, because they've invested more of their identity[1] in being right.

Most people are rationally ignorant about politics. It's not like being more aware will necessarily lead to the positions you want. It wouldn't take much to convince workers in Michigan to pass a law that makes things more difficult for cars made in California.

[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html

hnnewguy2• 12 years ago

Is this information even available to people outside of the tech community?

You overestimate how much people outside of the tech industry care about what is, at this point, a rich person's toy.

Most people couldn't care less whether someone buying a $100,000+ vehicle is modestly inconvenienced. When/if circumstances change, and Tesla builds a car for the masses, the laws will change accordingly. People are self-interested.

maxerickson• 12 years ago

To a first approximation, 0% of voters care if they can buy a Tesla. Some large portion of people also wouldn't see the problem with requiring a dealership (or would prefer it, because of whatever concerns about service (I'm not endorsing that argument, just pointing it out)).

mikeash5• 12 years ago

It's because US politics (and no implication is intended about how similar or different it is in other countries) is basically a team sport. The real-world consequences of politics matters much less than "our side" winning. Sides are often defined by political parties, but can also be defined by geography or industry.

The elected officials here are members of the right party or cater to the right industry or are from the right region, so they'll continue to get elected. What they do in office matters comparatively little.

briandear2• 12 years ago

But this really comes down to voting. Why does a better funded candidate win? Because a TV ad convinced some idiot to vote for that candidate? I see informercials and "work from home and make millions" scams all the time. But I don't buy the product whatever it might be. Yet voters seemingly are completely ignorant. So candidates who are well funded by special interests end up winning. But often these anti-competitive practices are in primarily Democrat controlled areas. Uber is a great example: Austin, DC city councils for example are entirely Democrat and thus beholder to "labor" and anti-competitive practices. This isn't exclusively a democrat practice, however much of the time it is. The NY and San Francisco war against AirBnB for example is about collecting more taxes. The anti-competitive closed-shop system is entirely democrat supported. The endless taxes and regulation of business is a democrat obsession. Certain national democrats sometimes go against the trend, especially the tech-oriented. But the boots on the ground Democrats are especially prone to anti-competitive tendencies. Protectionism is a hallmark of the AFL-CIO and they completely support (and significantly fund) the Democrat party. I'm not saying "Republicans are good," there are plenty of shit Republicans, however philosophically, Democrats are anti-competitive by nature because the concept of the free market goes against their core values of so-called 'economic justice.' Honestly ask yourself, if this Tesla decision were in the hands of Rand Paul or John Conyers, who would be more likely to support the free market in this situation? Would Ronald Reagan be more likely to support Tesla that Obama? Almost certainly, based on their records. Obama for instance through his supporters on the NLRB have opposed companies such as Boeing to build non-Union factories -- which is in-effect the same thing we have with Tesla -- an attempt to maintain a type of monopoly and artificially constrain the free market in order to serve a specific narrow group of voters and interests. That's what's happening here: the auto dealers, just like the AFL-CIO did with Boeing, are attempting to artificially protect their monopoly position, to the detriment of the population as a whole. I know this comment won't win me many friends here, but I hope that everyone at least researches guys like Rand Paul -- not the propaganda (in either direction) but what he actually says and stands for. If we can get more politicians like him, then perhaps we can start to realize that we can have freer markets, more personal freedoms and perhaps a government that knows when to get out of the way (and knows when to get in the way.) If anyone has the time or the inclination, read the book 'Economics in One Lesson.'

atlantic3• 12 years ago

The destructive influence of lobbying is not restricted to a single party, as you seem to be arguing. Off the top of my head, I would point to three-strike laws, which strongly favour the (privatized) prison sector, or hawkish foreign policies, benefiting armament and security companies, as examples of areas in which Republican-directed lobbies have distorted US policy.

_delirium• 12 years ago

The politician called out by name here, state senator Joe Hune, is a Republican. The Republican Party also controls the legislature that passed this bill: they hold a supermajority (68%) of seats in the Michigan Senate, and a majority (54%) of seats in the Michigan House. And, the governor is a Republican. So I doubt the explanation for this case, at least, can be laid specifically at the feet of the Democratic Party trying to restrict trade.

skrebbel2• 12 years ago

Using a procedure that prevented legislators and the public at large from knowing what was happening or allowing debate, Senator Joe Hune added new language in an attempt to lock Tesla out of the State. Unsurprisingly, Senator Hune counts the Michigan Automobile Dealers Association as one of his top financial contributors, and his wife’s firm lobbies for the dealers.

In the Netherlands, we call this corruption.

(It happens too, but so openly? Don't you guys have rules against this? Or media who like scandals?)

peteretep• 12 years ago

Constitutional right to Free Speech for corporations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Elec...

Heliosmaster• 12 years ago

It's always the same story with Lobbying.

If you say "I'm giving you $1M to pass this law", it's corruption, if you say "I'm giving you $1M, but if you don't pass this law i'm going to withdraw it", then it's lobbying.

spacefight3• 12 years ago

Hence, lobbying equals corruption. Period.

graft• 12 years ago

  > Don't you guys have rules against this? Or media who like scandals?

Yes, but the rules are different for South African expats attempting to weild power as flashy know-it-all technocrats trying to boss around the home team. Understand that state and local governance attracts a strata of intellect that includes a broad swath ranging from high school gym coach all the way up to your brother-in-law's idiot nephew who needs a job.

Some animals are more equal than others.

dzhiurgis• 12 years ago

media who like scandals

Media only likes scandals about foreign enemies. Otherwise they are self-censoring in order not to loose faith in the economy which growth is just based on promise.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

hooande• 12 years ago

There's nothing corrupt about it. The voting citizens of Michigan like the auto industry the way it is and they have an understandable fear of disruptive new technologies. It makes good sense that someone representing a state known for producing automobiles would accept campaign contributions from automobile manufacturers. Many of the people he represents are employed by those companies in some way and it's his job to advocate for their interests and work with their lobbyists. It's good that a senator's campaign is funded by the businesses from his or her state, as opposed to being funded by organizations that have nothing to do with the concerns of the state's citizens. The people and their representatives are on the same team.

Representative democracies work the same in the US, the Netherlands and all over. If a majority of the people of Michigan were vocally demanding Tesla dealerships, they would get them. That might be the case in a few years, but all we can do now is let the system work. There's a midterm election coming up soon and all of the Michiganders on hn can vote and convince others to vote for Tesla, but change may take time.

willvarfar• 12 years ago

Do these donors represent the interests of the corporations or the citizens?

tomp• 12 years ago

It makes good sense that someone representing a state known for producing automobiles would accept campaign contributions from automobile manufacturers.

Except, you know, that the contributions weren't from automobile manufacturers, but from the dealerships, whose interests are in conflict with the manufacturers (the more one party earns, the less there is for the other).

Arnt• 12 years ago

No, representative democracies do not work the same all over. Some have a 98% reelection rate, but not all.

hnnewguy2• 12 years ago

It makes good sense that someone representing a state known for producing automobiles would accept campaign contributions from automobile manufacturers

I, for one, agree with you wholeheartedly. This is politics in action. Just because you don't particularly agree with a decision doesn't mean it isn't working as intended.

When subjects like this are broached on this forum, we hear about lobbying and corruption, as if companies like Tesla-- who direct tax credits to rich people and play states off other for employment-- are above this. The tech industry in general is a huge lobby.

wil4213• 12 years ago

The reason it isnt counted as corruption is because they use it as campaign funds.

Domestic spying aside, this is the biggest problem I have with the my govt. How can you be representing your constituents when your pocket is filled by corporations.

protonfish3• 12 years ago

Yes, thanks, we know. One could even say this is the core reason for many of the USA's other problems: the continuing financial crisis, for-profit medical system, huge rates of incarceration, justice system inequalities based on money, ever-widening income disparity, obscenely massive government spending, I could go on.

The only solution is to have the legislators pass a law to stop it. Because they are huge beneficiaries of the current corruption, that is unlikely to happen and the American government and economy will continue to erode.

Not sure how to fix this. Open to suggestions.

vacri• 12 years ago

A friend of mine pointed out that the way US politicians have to campaign, they're always in need of donations for funding for electoral reasons. Even if you're not particularly prone to corruption, there's the problem that the only people you have time to give your ear to are the people who are going to give you money. It's a simplified view, but it does illustrate one problem with the way the US elects its officials.

KayEss• 12 years ago

This just came up in another comment on HN: http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_t...

srs0001• 12 years ago

What about when campaign finance reform was passed? I thought that it was a fantastic idea, but we ended up with super PACs, which have seemingly unlimited funds. Even worse, the politicians they support can say that they don't have control and shed any liability.

I too want to hear ideas for fixing the system, but I think it is going to take more than just a few laws being passed.

dopamean• 12 years ago

Which continuing financial crisis are you referring to?

freshflowers2• 12 years ago

Oh, get of your high horse.

In the Netherlands it's done via mutual favors, usually in the form of cushy and insanely overpaid jobs for former politicians and civil servants in exchange for favorable laws and government contracts. This happens openly in a way that would be called scandalous corruption in Germany.

In the Netherlands, we call what happens in other countries corruption and think our own shit doesn't smell. And because international corruption stats are usually self-reporting, we maintain the illusion we are squeaky clean. Bullshit.

Confusion• 12 years ago

There are fairly objective rankings of this sort of thing[1] and both The Netherlands and Germany score significantly better than the US.

That we also have corruption does not mean it is as bad as elsewhere and does not mean we don't get to call out blatant examples of it, especially blatant examples of the sort that are easy to get rid of by calling them out.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

pnathan• 12 years ago

Well, I'm from the US, and it stinks like corruption of a particularly obvious sort. He can stay on his high horse all he likes.

wiremine• 12 years ago

I live in Michigan, and was dishearten when I read about this story the other day. But not really that surprised.

A few observations:

- Tesla isn't a name brand here like Ford or GM. In fact, if you asked a lot of people if we should help the Big Three with this sort of legislation, you might be surprised by the answer. Remember, they generate a LOT of jobs in this state: not just the Big Three, but the tier 2 and tier 3 manufactors. While I think logic would win out in the day, I wouldn't assume that everybody in Michigan _wants_ Tesla. It isn't in their best interest.

- I haven't seen one media story about this yet, outside of social media.

- We're in the middle of an election cycle year, including a gubernatorial race. So, the special interests picked a good time to insert this language: there are a lot of problems the state is still dealing with, including Detroit going through bankruptcy. And people want the money to win races.

Personally, I'd love to see Telsa in the state, both the cars and charging stations. But, honestly, Telsa isn't going to get much traction here until they improve cold weather battery performance.

clarebear• 12 years ago

My retired father-in-law who lives in a suburb of Detroit got a car that was not manufactured by the by the Big Three a couple years ago. He felt so much social pressure that he quickly returned it and got one that was. He told me that some "foreign" cars would be egged in his neighborhood. I put foreign in quotes, as big three cars are not always manufactured in the US and sometimes other cars are manufactured here. But if you are from Detroit, where the headquarters is and the profits go back to matters most, and tangibly matters.

nathanm412• 12 years ago

Cold weather performance is trumpeted a lot by EV detractors, but the number one selling new car in Norway last month was the Tesla Model S.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/08/tesla-norway-idUSL...

Here's an interesting interview from Elon Musk about the Tesla battery winter performance. http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/01/interview-with-elon-musk...

Igglyboo2• 12 years ago

Exactly this. I'm about to graduate with a BS in Computer Science from Oakland University. We're less than a mile away from Chrysler World HQ. I'd say about 90% of my classmates already are, or are going to, work for one of the Big 3 or Big 3 suppliers. If you explained this situation to most people you met on the street, they would probably be in favor of fucking over Tesla.

Cars are pretty much the backbone of the entire economy here in MI. It's getting better, but not fast enough. Apparently what happened to Flint and Detroit wasn't enough of a wakeup call for everyone.

tjpaxton• 12 years ago

- I haven't seen one media story about this yet, outside of social media.

I also live in michigan and both of the major detroit newspapers had this on the front page early this morning [0][1].

This is about helping dealerships, not manufacturers so you'd think that any support for the Big Three manufactures wouldn't correlate with support for this bill.

[0] http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2014/10/16/t... [1] -http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2014/10/17/michigan-ve...

UnethicalHacks• 12 years ago

Telsa isn't going to get much traction here until they improve cold weather battery performance.

are you joking? Toronto has plenty of Teslas and they work just fine.

jusben13693• 12 years ago

That's rather dramatic but then again this is the sort of response the blog post is meant to elicit. Tesla has proven to be very adept at working with state governments for financial gain so it would appear that they're not complaining about the closeness of state government and automobile companies. Just that they came out on the losing end for now of this particular instance

- "Greater Phoenix Economic Council President and CEO Barry Broome said Nevada offers of upfront incentives and cash put it as much as $300 million ahead of other states bidding for the plant. Tesla considered Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and its home state of California"

davmar• 12 years ago

I disagree. It's blatant corruption and it's not dramatic to call it out.

sbalea• 12 years ago

We have the best legislators money can buy

exelius• 12 years ago

Political corruption like this is seen as being so common place here that the media largely ignores it.

Also, the US is a BIG place. There are 4 states in the US with larger populations than the Netherlands. However, news is generally distributed at the national and local levels (local news stations and national media outlets). Very few people watch local news anymore, so local news tends to be more like Buzzfeed than informative. National news is headed that way as well.

Overall though, people aren't interested in stories about corruption. So the politicians get away with it, because stories about OMG EBOLA WILL KILL YOU draw more viewers than yet another political corruption story.

serve_yay• 12 years ago

That's not a scandal. A scandal is, that guy gets caught screwing his secretary, or propositioning other men in a bathroom.

smoyer• 12 years ago

Does anyone else get the sense that the Tesla Legal and Public Relations departments are starting to have fun attacking the politicians who push these bills through? The wording feels different than most corporate press releases.

Someone• 12 years ago

Harsh statements, but no facts from objective sources. Looking for that, I can find stuff from 'the other side' at http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ejuo53qtuul1s2fn2o4sa255))/... where if I reading this right (aside: 'interesting' reuse of "(i)" as both ninth letter of the alphabet and Roman numeral) section i reads

"(1) A manufacturer shall not do any of the following:

(i) Sell any new motor vehicle directly to a retail customer other than through its 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 the manufacturer's new motor vehicle dealers."

, but that text isn't recent (see the history at the bottom).

What exactly did they change and what were the arguments?

staffordrj• 12 years ago

Here's a diff of the changes https://www.diffchecker.com/idjdre6n

ams61102• 12 years ago

Michigan is in the toilet. Detroit is bankrupt, huge parts of the city are abandoned ruins, and the rest of the state isn't much better off. Tesla probably would not sell many cars there anyway. If I'm wrong, it's a good opportunity for northern Indiana or Ohio to court a Tesla store.

jstalin3• 12 years ago

While I agree with you about Detroit, the rest of the state is doing fairly well.

mikeyouse• 12 years ago

If I'm wrong

You are.

The suburbs of Detroit are some of the wealthiest zip codes in the country, much of the Western coast is filled with beach towns and million-dollar lake houses, the HQs of dozens of multi-billion dollar business are there, and Michigan is the 9th most populous state in the US. Tesla would sell plenty of vehicles there.

Al__Dante• 12 years ago

I think this might be the relevant change (contained in bill S-1 which was substituted in the Regulatory Reform Committee):

"2 (i) Sell any new motor vehicle directly to a retail customer 3 other than through <del>its</del> franchised dealers, unless the retail 4 customer is a nonprofit organization or a federal, state, or local 5 government or agency. This subdivision does not prohibit a 6 manufacturer from providing information to a consumer for the 7 purpose of marketing or facilitating the sale of new motor vehicles 8 or from establishing a program to sell or offer to sell new motor 9 vehicles through the <del>manufacturer's</del> FRANCHISED new motor vehicle 10 dealers THAT SELL AND SERVICE NEW MOTOR VEHICLES PRODUCED BY THE 11 MANUFACTURER."

Link to the passage of the bill: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(zkgdwb45ddzp3imtvsszat55))/...

Link to the substitute bill: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(zkgdwb45ddzp3imtvsszat55))/...

spacefight3• 12 years ago

Setup 100% Tesla-owned franchise. Sell through that.

howeyc• 12 years ago

I'm not sure you can do this. Isn't the point of the franchise that it's owned by someone else?

For example, if McDonald's corporate opens a location owned by them, can they called it a "franchise" location?

lost_name• 12 years ago

Honestly, if the loophole was that simple I would think they would have started with this.

minimax• 12 years ago

The State of Illinois would like to extend a warm welcome to the people of Michigan, and invite them (and their tax dollars) to visit one of the several Tesla stores in the Chicago area.

Shivetya• 12 years ago

Honestly Tesla, STAY OUT OF MICHIGAN.

If you refuse to do business with the state, go as far as to discourage people living there form buying them, eventually there could be enough public pressure to bring about a change.

If not that, perhaps a few billboards equating the politicians to Neanderthals might work

Its time to ignore the states that refuse to play fair, shame them, and perhaps their voters will wake up.

brk• 12 years ago

At this point in time, Tesla is still less than a rounding error on automobile sales. Ignoring potential markets and counting on the public to "do the right thing" would seem like a suicidal strategy to me. Do you have examples of where this approach has worked?

twosheep2• 12 years ago

I'm not sure that would work in a state as car-centric as Michigan; "out of sight, out of mind." Lots of other cars to buy, especially given Tesla's demographic when compared with Michigan's demographic.

Igglyboo2• 12 years ago

Yea because we should force anyone who wants to break into an established market to pay for a shit ton of marketing and political attack ads! /s

khaki54• 12 years ago

As a Michigan native (though long gone) and someone erring on the side of conservatism, this is just a disappointment all around. Michigan is historically manufacturer friendly - to a fault, so they really went out of their way here.

Eventually all of these statutes will probably be stricken down due to the commerce clause... you are buying the vehicle direct from another state, therefore it's interstate commerce.

smackfu2• 12 years ago

Manufacturer friendly, or Michigan-based manufacturer friendly?

hippich2• 12 years ago

When I hear about Tesla not being able to sell directly to customers, and have to go through dealer, I always wondered why different corporate structure can not be created, where some head company owns Tesla and all dealerships used to sell Tesla cars? This way it is not manufacturer selling these and control of the distribution is still within parent organization.

ceejayoz• 12 years ago

IIRC in many states dealerships are required to have independent ownership from the manufacturer and no individual/company can own more than one.

hippich2• 12 years ago

Is there some sort of test tho? I.e. what I was proposing - dealearship could be separate company and owned by head corporation, which in turn owns Tesla itself. So dealership is separate entity and not directly controlled by Tesla.

RankingMember• 12 years ago

FYI: Here's a direct link to the web form for sharing your opinion with the Michigan governor's office: https://somgovweb.state.mi.us/GovRelations/ShareOpinion.aspx

saturdaysaint• 12 years ago

The funny thing is that Michigan's legislature is run by yokel conservatives who made a big show of becoming a "right to work" state (i.e. making it illegal to have mandatory all-union workplaces) - when corporate interests and Fox News talking points were at stake, they were remarkably eager to thump their chests about free association.

jdpedrie• 12 years ago

wut? in what world does "free association" equal "mandatory all-union workplaces"?

Just your words.

mikeash5• 12 years ago

In what world (just your words) does his comment equate the two?

dbrower• 12 years ago

Automobile franchisees (car dealers) skew overwhelmingly conservative. Draw your own conclusions.

jstalin3• 12 years ago

Just called the governor's office and the lady answering the phone was quite nice. I urge all other residents of Michigan to do the same.

jstalin3• 12 years ago

Here's a follow-up article on the issue from today. Some are claiming that Tesla direct sales are already illegal in Michigan:

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2014/10/tesla_di...

cellis2• 12 years ago

Tesla wants to have its cake and eat it too. You can't take a 500 million loan from taxpayers ( the vast majority of whom DON'T benefit from and can't afford your product ) and then on the other hand claim unfair treatment by local governments.

enraged_camel2• 12 years ago

Maybe you're forgetting that the auto industry received bailouts that were two orders of magnitude greater than the loan that Tesla took from the government. And, unlike the rest of the auto industry, Tesla paid back its loans, and did so ahead of time.

cellis2• 12 years ago

First, that's kind of a strawman. I didn't say that GM's bailout was a good thing, only that Tesla has also taken money from the government ( at its most dire time, I might add; had they not received those loans they'd have been insolvent for sure ). And second, even though Tesla paid back its loans, it doesn't mean the taxpayer benefitted at all from the transaction. Au contraire, by paying back the loans early, Tesla avoided granting the government shares of TSLA, and thus stiffed the taxpayer out of any possible return. I understand everyone in SV wants Tesla to succeed, but it's not the most meritocratic, little-upstart-vs-entrenched-player story their PR would like you to believe.

Dylan168073• 12 years ago

Cake and eat it too? These are completely unrelated issues. They took a loan and also they want to be able to sell their product. Sounds fair to me.

navait2• 12 years ago

Elon musk has so much money, why can't he just be his own lobbyist instead of getting his fanboys on this. I have no stake in this.

mzzk• 12 years ago

If you live in America, you have a stake in this.

navait2• 12 years ago

I don't buy new cars.

anigbrowl• 12 years ago

By striking a single, but critical, word from MCLA 445.1574(14)(1)(i), the law governing franchise relations in Michigan, the dealers seek to force Tesla [...]

Well, don't tell us what it is or provide any links to it... /eyeroll. I believe their complaint is about line 3 on page 6 of the following document: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billengros...

I support Tesla's efforts and deplore the legislative pandering to incumbent industries, but drumming up support for a legal/political conflict without articulating the actual issue is counter-productive. All that happens is that people send emails or make phone calls to the legislative body saying they're outraged, and then get fobbed off with technicalities because >95% of the outraged people don't actually know what they're complaining about, they only know one party's assertion of what the downsides will be. If you want an internet army to go into battle for you, arm them properly with the facts.

canvia3• 12 years ago

The state Senator responsible for this is up for election in 2 weeks. This is his opponent and she accepts donations: http://www.voteforshari.com/

A Raw Deal in Michigan

Related Stories