Administration 'Answers' Tesla Direct Sales Petition With A Brief 'No' And Several Paragraphs Of Self-Congratulatory Text

from the the-question-was-about-Tesla,-but-let's-hear-about-YOUR-thing dept

Tue, Jul 15th 2014 3:33pm — Tim Cushing

The administration still doesn't want to talk about pardoning Ed Snowden or reforming the ECPA (Electronic Communications Privacy Act), but it has stepped up to cherry pick another petition from the pile over at We The People. The petition, which asks for the government to step in and force states to allow Tesla to sell its cars directly to customers, was created more than a year ago. That puts it right on pace for petition answers, which still average nearly 300 days from the date of creation.

The petition is a little misguided but is an understandable response to state after state protecting incumbent car dealerships by attempting to force Tesla to sell through an established middleman. The amount of tax revenue generated by successful dealerships makes it very hard for state politicians to say "no." It's become so common over the past few years that the introduction of Tesla-targeting legislation is a fairly accurate barometer of political corruption.

The petition is simple: force states to allow Tesla to sell directly to consumers. The problem is that the Administration can't rewrite state laws on the fly.

Thanks for your We the People petition. We're excited about the next generation of transportation choices, including the kind of electric vehicles that Tesla and others have developed. These companies are taking steps to help spur innovation in the promising area of advanced batteries and electric automobiles. Vehicle electrification and other advanced technologies are vital components of President Obama's Climate Action Plan, and his commitment to addressing climate change and reducing carbon pollution, in addition to reducing our dependence on oil.

But as you know, laws regulating auto sales are issues that have traditionally sat with lawmakers at the state level.

We believe in the goal of improving consumer choice for American families, including more vehicles that provide savings at the pump for consumers. However, we understand that pre-empting current state laws on direct-to-consumer auto sales would require an act of Congress.

So, the problem must be handled through our nation's legislators or at state level in each individual state. Neither option is very palatable. State legislators are in no hurry to lose revenue by obliging an upstart (no matter how much its constituents may desire another option) and legislators in DC are no less likely to cater to established entities and their tax dollars/contributions.

But let's not waste too much more time discussing the low-level corruption that prevents new entrants into markets. Let's hear some more about the administration's exciting Climate Action Plan, because that's cleary what Dan Utech, "Special Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change," really wants to talk about. (Questions concerning the administration's decision to send an energy/climate change advisor to answer an auto sales regulation petition will also presumably go unanswered.)

We are already making significant progress in promoting vehicle efficiency: new vehicle fuel economy has increased by 12% since 2008 and consumers now can choose from five times more car models with a combined city/highway fuel economy of 30 mpg or more, compared to just five years ago. In December 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that model year 2012 vehicles achieved an all-time high fuel economy, after increasing seven of the last eight years...

Thanks, Dan, but we were hoping you could address consumers' interests being ignored by government—

The President has taken historic action to spur more consumer choice -- saving consumers money at the pump and reducing our dependence on oil. Here are some of the ways we're helping to encourage the future generation of energy-efficient cars…

…and so on for another three paragraphs. Five out of seven paragraphs are nothing more than the administration very sincerely congratulating itself for being so awesome and forward-thinking. Very little deals with the actual petition, but I guess we should be grateful it was acknowledged at all.

The final paragraph attempts to portray the government as innovation's best friend:

As these initiatives show, the Administration is in favor of fostering competition in the market to help spur the kinds of innovation needed to support ongoing U.S. leadership in vehicle manufacturing and a potential range of new technologies.

Maybe the administration (or at least Dan Utech) is truly "in favor of fostering competition in the market," but the government is the government is the government. Consumers want more options, established businesses want consumers to have fewer, and all too frequently the "government," whether it's local, state or national, sides with those on the established side. The administration can't force states to change laws, but it could at least offer something better in response than a press release masquerading as an "answer."

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: auto dealers, direct sales, innovation, white house
Companies: tesla

42 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

JH, 15 Jul 2014 @ 4:07pm

Maybe they could add a provision to TTIP ...

After all, it does have a motor vehicles chapter, and it is supposed to be a free trade agreement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2014 @ 4:14pm

And this is why...
...petitions are a truly stupid waste of time, especially in the current political/social/economic/legal climate. If you want something done, then you need to make it happen by exerting political or economic power: "asking nicely" via petition just means that you're giving the powerful something new to laugh at you about in private with their friends. And you're also helping them building their "enemies list" by conveniently furnishing them with a handy list of those who oppose their policies -- often complete with a number of personal details.

Power concedes nothing without a demand.
It never did and it never will. -- Frederick Douglass

He was right then and he's even more right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2014 @ 4:25pm
  
  Re: And this is why...
  If you want something done, you just have to pay a politician to do it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - David (profile), 16 Jul 2014 @ 8:08am
    
    Re: Re: And this is why...
    This comment right here is why TechDirt needs to add a "Sad but True" button to the Insightful and Funny options...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2014 @ 4:16pm

We The People is nothing more than a self serving site, used now solely to push the administration's agenda.

Several have exceeded the required voting limits to be recognized without any response whatever. Others never made it to the required voting amounts and yet still were answered.

It shows this is nothing more than propaganda as they can't even follow their own rules while cherry picking those to be answered and ignoring those that have qualified for an answer.

It's just another feel good tool without real meaning, having no value beyond pushing the agenda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 15 Jul 2014 @ 4:21pm

I haven't come up with anything better to say, so I'll repost this.

"We the People" is a publicity stunt that worked.

In an age when people think they can save someones life from cancer with a FB like, or that just saying something is bad on twitter, or clicking on an online petition will make a change happen - it is the perfect distraction.
People want to click a button and declare mission accomplished. Then they move onto the next cause that their FB like will end globally.

Imagine if everyone who signed that petition had sent emails to their Congressmember.
Imagine if they had sent a real letter instead, because email is easy to accidentally lose.
Imagine if they had arranged a meetup with people who shared the same idea, that this is bad for the people and mobilized people into doing something more than click a button on a website.
Imagine if they went to local & state meetings and pushed this issue.

But instead - many just click a button, feel that they did something, and move on.
Hundreds of people are dying around the globe right now, how much air time did some basketball player get in the media?
We are all being spied upon in violation of the rights this country was founded on, and Hunny BooBoo won an eating contest. Which got more media coverage?

Sometimes you need to do more than just click like, sometimes you need to put effort into the causes you care about. Out leaders can ignore clicks online, they can not ignore people standing together demanding change. It can be scary, but you get better results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Travicane, 15 Jul 2014 @ 5:42pm
  
  Re: Facebook Likes
  Facebook Likes may not save someones life from cancer, but the community communication can certainly help:
  
  This little girls cancer "meds emergency funding" campaign deservedly reached over %200 of its goal in 6+ hours. Facebook friends were a major tool in raising awareness of the urgent need:
  http://www.gofundme.com/ble5ns
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 15 Jul 2014 @ 7:10pm
    
    Re: Re: Facebook Likes
    While there are stories like that, what was the ratio of "likes" to people who took action after clicking? We live in a society where "adults" saw text something to the red cross to donate money and texted like mad, thinking the money came from somewhere other than their own pocket. That they were voting in a popularity contest to award help to those who were worthy.
    
    We the People is a distraction, meant to keep people from organizing on their own to make change happen. Occupy tried to make change and that went well. People are terrified of the government and it's corporate sponsors if they admit it or not.
    
    If 100,000 people sent actual real letters, it becomes harder for them to ignore it like they do 100,000 people who ticked a box. 100,000 people marching anywhere is going to pull riot police to dissuade them from making their complaints heard.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DonM, 16 Jul 2014 @ 3:18pm
  
  Re:
  People have been praying to cure disease since the ancient Hebrews.
  
  Sometimes it worked. Facebook works the same way.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2014 @ 5:41pm

If you want change
Call for a Constitutional Convention. The last 2 times it got close the change that was demanded at the time was given. Of course vast amounts of money will be required, or some star power that has not been seen in ages.

On the bright side Fox news will have no idea what to do since the Tea Party is in favor of this tactic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HMTKSteve, 15 Jul 2014 @ 5:44pm

Insurance
Interesting. Do you know what else was controlled by the states until very recently? Health insurance.

Why does health insurance get a federal power grab yet auto sales do not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Travicane, 15 Jul 2014 @ 6:18pm
  
  Re: Insurance
  Actually, I think the Act gave bundles of federal money to the States to set up and run programs, and all but the most stupid, or die-hard Republican states, said "Good Deal".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kronomex, 15 Jul 2014 @ 6:14pm

All of which means until you give us big donations we won't help and anyway GM, Ford, and Chrysler wouldn't like us letting you selling direct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Travicane, 15 Jul 2014 @ 7:38pm

Online Petitions
Since it is now obvious that the Obama "We the People" initiative is, at best a sham (at worst a cynical sop for the stupid, weak masses), perhaps we should test the alternatives for Petitions.

A Family member just started a petition on "Change.Org" related to cancer treatment for children.

I suspect it will have no more effect than the Obama POC site, but it is interesting to see if the private sector can do better. I signed the following petition:
http://www.change.org/petitions/anthem-blue-cross-cover-last-hope-fda-approved-cancer-medication-for -8-year-old-with-ependymoma#share

Sign it and then follow it to see if there is any real action to solve the problem.

My instinct for says that you will need a petition site that actively and accurately shames Congresscritters for their most egregious "legalized" corrupt behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Whatever (profile), 15 Jul 2014 @ 7:51pm

Great Story
It's a great story, but a little lacking in background. It's pretty easy to paint the states and money grubbers, but that is the easy way out of explaining a much more complicated situation.

First and foremost, the question is consumer protection. Requiring companies to see through in state dealers means that you don't end up in a situation where the buyer and seller are operating under two different sets of consumer protection rules. Can you imagine the legal nightmares of trying to sue a dealer who fails to deliver when they are in another state, or for that dealer to try to recoup payment from a consumer in another state? It would turn the whole things literally into a federal case (interstate commerce) and would be a real for all parties concerned.

Then you have the issue of warranty service, state mandated contractual provisions, and the like. Can you imagine if car companies all moved off shore and sold their cars from nations with no consumer protection laws? Forget recalls, it would be impossible to enforce them.

There are reasons why things are done a certain way. It protects the consumers, it protects the dealers, and it protects the car companies - all while keeping the tax base and jobs in the states where the cars are sold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 15 Jul 2014 @ 8:39pm
  
  Re: Great Story
  "Can you imagine the legal nightmares of trying to sue a dealer who fails to deliver when they are in another state, or for that dealer to try to recoup payment from a consumer in another state?"
  
  I don't know, how is it done with the thousands of other companies that operate interstate? Like Google, or Amazon.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 15 Jul 2014 @ 8:41pm
  
  Re: Great Story
  Yes by protecting a business model that allows them to prey on consumers.
  
  States are banning sales of Teslas because dealerships are crying foul. Not to save people, not for anything else you babble about. It is protectionism at its finest.
  
  You drag out some handwringing what-ifs that have nothing to do with the matter at hand, trying to scare people into accepting what you are saying.
  
  This is about protecting a business model in the "free market" they always crow about. That goes against free markets doesn't it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Whatever (profile), 15 Jul 2014 @ 10:24pm
    
    Re: Re: Great Story
    States are banning sales of Teslas because dealerships are crying foul. Not to save people, not for anything else you babble about. It is protectionism at its finest.
    
    The dealerships are crying foul because they see unfair competition. They see a company who is trying to bypass the very reasons why the dealerships exist, all to suck profit out of the states and directly into Tesla's hands.
    
    Yeah, they are crying for economic reasons - and those reasons happen for all the points I mention above.
    
    Now, here's the thing: The real play here isn't cars, it's literally everything. The US economy (and almost every economy on the planet) works through systems of distribution and local marketing. That is to say that someone makes a product, sells it to a distributor, who in turn sells it to a local retailer, who sells it to the consumer. Yup, damn middlemen, right? It's something that has become really needed as we have moved to manufacturing all over the world. The product may be made in China or Mexico or whatever, shipped to the distributor, and on to retail stores. It would be incredibly hard to deal with each of those manufacture sites for a small retail business.
    
    The internet and such as given rise to the centralized reseller / distributor model. Amazon is a perfect example of a company who basically gets the stuff direct from the factory and sells it themselves. They handle their own distribution. However, we have seen how this hurts local markets and also creates problems for state level sales taxes and such. It also creates certain levels of problems where state consumer protection requirements are different over state lines.
    
    We also have business models like Wal-Mart, who buy directly from the factory and do their own distribution to their own retail stores. Their profits are in many ways related to negotiation the lowest purchase prices for huge volumes of goods, and then taking only one profit margin in the process (at retail). They can do it for less because they only have to make one profit and not the 2 or 3 that comes in independent supply chain steps.
    
    The next logical step would be for a Wal-Mart replacement to run that has no retail stores, and only sells online. That would remove the costs of distribution, and would replace it with costs that could be passed to consumers (as shipping costs).
    
    Take it one step further, perhaps this Wal-Mart replacement could exist directly in China, and sell to US consumers without having to ever bring the goods into the US themselves. Think Alibaba but on a much more functional scale.
    
    Oh wait, you have heard the horror stories of buying from Alibaba. You know, low grade products, not exactly as offered products, and a whole bunch of other issues. Because of the international nature of the process, there are no real consumer protection laws. Good luck getting a refund!
    
    So, what would stop GM (or any other car company) from selling direct, but actually completing the sale offshore, to (a) entirely avoid sales tax, and (b) to entirely avoid consumer protection laws and liabilities?
    
    it's what Kim Dotcom tried to go with megaupload. It almost worked.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 16 Jul 2014 @ 12:25am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Great Story
      "The dealerships are crying foul because they see unfair competition. "
      
      ....because it's different from a business model that they want to keep, even though newer ways of doing business may be better for manufacturer and consumer alike. But, you defend their ability to pretend it's the 1970s, as you do with every other business. God forbid you debate the facts or another point of view.
      
      "it's what Kim Dotcom tried to go with megaupload. It almost worked."
      
      Not tired of pure, unmitigated bullshit in yet another screed that ignores any point people are actually making, you try to tie this into totally irrelevant accusations to distract from the actual story (no, that has nothing to do with what he was doing).
      
      But, you won't discuss or debate this, you just spout utter rubbish, then whine about being called out on it. Then you hide, until the next opportunity to lie your ass off.
      
      Aren't you tired of this yet? Don't you want to pretend to be an honest human being for once in your life and actually address reality?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Whatever (profile), 16 Jul 2014 @ 12:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Great Story
        I can always count on you to show up with ad homs, personal attacks, and not much else. Re-read your post, once you strike out the ad homs and "you are not right because I say so" comments, there is nothing except punctuation!
        
        Give it a rest, I am not going to fight with you, no matter how hard you try to engage me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 17 Jul 2014 @ 12:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Great Story
        "Give it a rest, I am not going to fight with you"
        
        I'm, not after a fight, I'm after honest discussion with people who don't deliberately distort every argument at every turn. I'm sorry you're a liar, but while you continue to lie, I will keep calling you out on it. The level of intellectual dishonest in everything you write is only matched by your whining about being called on it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ninja (profile), 16 Jul 2014 @ 4:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Great Story
      Yeah, buggy whips faced unfair competition from the automobile. Ice extraction faced unfair competition from the fridges. We should outlaw those. Really.
      
      And then you mix completely unrelated imports issues. I wonder why Apple can have their own stores and sell directly to the customers and Tesla can't. Consumer protection laws still apply no matter how you twist it.
      
      You should seriously think before posting. At least provide some quality trolling.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Whatever (profile), 16 Jul 2014 @ 5:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Great Story
        Yeah, buggy whips faced unfair competition from the automobile. Ice extraction faced unfair competition from the fridges. We should outlaw those. Really.
        
        Analogy fail. The rules apply to cars, electric, motorized or other. If we were talking space ships or star trek teleporters, you might have a point. Otherwise, you failed with this attempt. As you said, "You should seriously think before posting. At least provide some quality trolling."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 16 Jul 2014 @ 5:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Great Story
        Yeah, I fail. We should ban online sales to protect the brick and mortar stores from unfair competition too, I forgot it.
        
        Keep failing pal, it's amusing ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Whatever (profile), 16 Jul 2014 @ 5:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Great Story
        I don't follow you. There is a big debate regarding online sales and state sales taxes already, not to mention the impacts on employment. It's a wider scale issue than the Wal-mart effect that so many complained about in the past.
        
        You keep bringing up examples that just aren't relevant. Why?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2014 @ 8:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Great Story
        "There is a big debate regarding online sales and state sales taxes already, not to mention the impacts on employment."
        
        I already addressed both.
        
        https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140311/15270526534/corruption-index-if-state-moves-to-ban-t esla-direct-sales-its-sign-corruption.shtml#c806
        
        (read that post and some of the other posts there).
        
        The state can collect more taxes if they cut out the useless middlemen and the job creation argument goes against basic economic principles that you learn in econ 101.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 16 Jul 2014 @ 9:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Great Story
        Just because you think they aren't relevant it doesn't mean they aren't. Again, Tesla direct sales only harm dealers that don't get their cuts. This is not bad to the end consumer at all. For all I care the dealers can go belly up. There will still be plenty of competition among the brands and there will still be the need for spare parts, maintenance and all the rest.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 17 Jul 2014 @ 12:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Great Story
        "You keep bringing up examples that just aren't relevant. Why?"
        
        Presumably because you're so ignorant of the actual argument, you don't see that they are relevant. Middlemen don't take kindly to being eliminated, but they always have their sycophants to try and defend them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2014 @ 8:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Great Story
        "Analogy fail. The rules apply to cars, electric, motorized or other."
        
        I still don't understand your reasoning behind claiming that this analogy is not relevant. Buggy whips complained about 'unfair competition' so they opted to have laws that limited the abilities of new competing technologies. Likewise direct sales competes with dealerships so dealerships are opting to pass laws that limit direct online sales. They're both examples of older, less efficient, systems (in some circumstances) opting to limit new, more efficient, competing systems.
        
        "If we were talking space ships or star trek teleporters, you might have a point."
        
        and he also has a point here as well.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Whatever (profile), 16 Jul 2014 @ 1:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Great Story
        I still don't understand your reasoning behind claiming that this analogy is not relevant. Buggy whips complained about 'unfair competition' so they opted to have laws that limited the abilities of new competing technologies.
        
        The buggy whip example is one of a technology (horse drawn carriages) being replaced by motorized vehicles, and a side industry (buggy whips) trying to stop that process.
        
        The analogy fail is double here: We are going from selling cars to selling cars, they type of motor is in fact entirely irrelevant here as Musk would face the same issue for trying to direct sell a gas powered car too, and second there is no side industry, just direct participants in the process.
        
        There is no proof that the "new" way of selling that Tesla is trying to push is in fact more efficient, except in the very narrow scope of the actual sale itself. Since the dealer relationship in the car business isn't just sales, but also as a service point, an inventory holding area, a local marketer, and often as a member of the community, there is potential that the narrow efficiency of the selling process is lost overall.
        
        You may want to consider the issues of financing, the actual sales contract (different in many states), and all of the obligations that exist under the consumer protection laws in each state which the dealer helps the company to meet. That person (the dealer, salesman, etc) is your key contact in the process, not a faceless internet chat room person in another state somewhere.
        
        Tesla would almost certainly have to set up service centers to handle warranty issues, stock parts, and the like, and taking away the sales angle from these establishments would change that business model as well. It's very likely that higher repair costs would be passed on to consumers in the long run, as the establishments would not have the sales income stream to work from. It would also potentially change the relationship between the client and the company, considering that the service people are not the people you have been dealing with since the start of the process.
        
        Moreover, can you imagine every car sale transaction being a potential case for a federal court and not a local small claims court? The consumer would be a big loser because federal courts aren't cheap to file in and generally require a lawyer to work in, where local courts often have a small claims or simplified process for consumer complaints. I can't imagine their is any efficiency in putting consumers on their back foot and forced to deal with federal courts when they want a simple dispute resolved.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2014 @ 3:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Great Story
        "The buggy whip example is one of a technology (horse drawn carriages) being replaced by motorized vehicles, and a side industry (buggy whips) trying to stop that process."
        
        Yes
        
        "We are going from selling cars to selling cars"
        
        Which misses the point. We are going from selling cars through retailers from selling cars on the Internet.
        
        "There is no proof that the "new" way of selling that Tesla is trying to push is in fact more efficient, except in the very narrow scope of the actual sale itself."
        
        I'm sure the buggy whip industry would have argued the same thing about cars back then. This is for the market to decide.
        
        "Since the dealer relationship in the car business isn't just sales, but also as a service point, an inventory holding area, a local marketer, and often as a member of the community, there is potential that the narrow efficiency of the selling process is lost overall. "
        
        No one is saying that dealers should be prohibited from car dealing or that the market has no place for them. Just that the government shouldn't require manufacturers to go through them. To the extent that they add value consumers will determine this and are better able to determine this than legislatures that pass laws based on the fact that they are bought and paid for. If you really like the benefits that you think a dealer provides you then you are free to go to a dealer. I have no problem with that.
        
        But you have absolutely no right to use the government to force me to buy through a dealer just because you said so and to force me to buy a car in the way that you think is in my best interests. That's for me to decide how I want to buy my car, not some bought politician.
        
        "You may want to consider the issues of financing, the actual sales contract (different in many states), and all of the obligations that exist under the consumer protection laws in each state which the dealer helps the company to meet. That person (the dealer, salesman, etc) is your key contact in the process, not a faceless internet chat room person in another state somewhere."
        
        When it's time for me to buy a car I will take these into consideration. I don't need you to decide for me how I should or must go about buying a car.
        
        "It's very likely that higher repair costs would be passed on to consumers in the long run, as the establishments would not have the sales income stream to work from."
        
        This sound like something that you made up and goes against economic theory. If anything if Tesla can sell cars for cheaper and make more by cutting out the middlemen they will have a higher income stream to sell repair parts to car repair shops and so it would be more profitable for them to lower the prices of those parts as part of their marketing points towards convincing people to buy the car in the first place (not to mention car repair shops often buy after market parts made by other manufacturers as well).
        
        The cost of repair (and litigation) is something the consumer will have to consider before buying the car. If you would rather deal with a dealership then that's your prerogative. but don't force your decisions on others.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2014 @ 4:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Great Story
        and if you would like to argue that hurting dealerships will hurt those that buy from dealerships, even if that's true (which the opposite is probably true since more competition probably means dealerships must do more to make their offerings more attractive) then what you are really arguing is that those that would find benefit in buying directly from manufacturers (they do so voluntarily) are effectively subsidizing those that would prefer to buy from dealerships by being forced to buy from dealerships themselves. Those that would prefer to buy from manufacturers should not be forced to subsidize those that would prefer to buy from dealerships.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2014 @ 7:10am
    
    A question
    So, if I was an American citizen in a State that banned online sales of cars, ordered a Tesla and forced the company to deliver it to my address by holding my NRA sanctioned semi automatic assault rifle to Elon's head, what would they do to me?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 16 Jul 2014 @ 4:10am

Inside sources have reported a surge in cases of dislocated collarbones in the White House after successive attempts at patting themselves in their own backs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 16 Jul 2014 @ 7:09am

Actually, that's really the right answer
From a Constitutional perspective (especially the 10th Amendment), that is the right answer. The States have the sovereignty, unless Congress (which requires a reference to the Commerce Clause) enacts something.

Of course, from a Federal perspective, there is nothing prohibiting sales of Telsa directly to the public (and this shouldn't change).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jerrymiah, 16 Jul 2014 @ 8:24am

Administration 'Answers' Tesla Direct Sales Petition With A Brief 'No' And Several Paragraphs Of Self-Congratulatory Text
Then, why not put that on the agenda and have a serious discussion when the all Governors next meet with the federal government. If the federal government cannot overrule the states' policies why mot have a serious discussion with them and try to get them to amend the law in the interest of the whole nation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TestPilotDummy, 16 Jul 2014 @ 8:51am

Just Imagine if HHO worked correctly
After years of fine tuning every system.
That it DID work.
only that.
That The metal engines not prepared for WATER as a fuel rust.
That the feed tubes ware not resonant tuned
that the feed was too much and basically your drowning your engine, no PLASMA, no ENERGY, just FAIL.

That the Piece of CRAP generators in modern cars are a DISGRACE to humanity's creativity.

I'll nip this rant.
And GO UNDERGROUND with future secrets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DensityDuck, 16 Jul 2014 @ 1:09pm

Wait, the Tenth Amendment exists now?
Border security, law enforcement, drug policy, animal feed: "These are cross-state issues which are clearly under the purview of the Federal government and the states shouldn't have any authority in these matters at all!"

Selling cars: "This is clearly a matter for the states to resolve in themselves, because car sales are almost certainly a local issue and has no national relevance whatsoever."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hank Reardon, 16 Jul 2014 @ 1:54pm

Boo freaking hoo, tesla sucks on guv teat
Go google it. Tesla has received millions in gubmint subsidies. They slept with the devil. Now they go around and cry for free markets. Screw them. They're getting exactly what they deserve. Cry for uber and lyft. Not for tesla. I'll never buy a Chevy nor a tesla.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Diggs, 16 Jul 2014 @ 2:39pm

I thought Obama had....
I thought Obama had a phone and a pen, and was going to blast through all these pesky Constitution barriers, like federalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
liberpolly, 16 Jul 2014 @ 6:36pm

How about "commerce clause"?
So the same administration that doesn't hesitate to use "interstate commerce" pretext to raid farms selling raw milk to local customers, and medical marijuana to local patients, suddenly decides it has no legal standing to force state to stop hindering interstate commerce in cars? Pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul Josaph, 25 Jul 2014 @ 5:04am

Glad to receive such informative information. Thanks for sharing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]