California has a Dog in this Dealership Fight

[Jack6591]

Here's my idea. Since Tesla Motors is a California based company, it's success is directly tied to fortunes of the state. Furthermore, California has a Governor and congress that are environmentally motivated. I am suggesting that we organize a group of advocates to approach green-minded California congressmen, and propose legislation empowering Tesla Motors' rights to sell directly to California consumers. A legislative act which could be used as an leadership example for other states.

My thinking is this, if California could enact legislation that embodied all the positive aspects of Teslas' free commerce approach it would make opposing legislation is other states seem antiquated and narrow-minded.

 

[rlang59]

Something like that should not single out Tesla Motors, it shouldn't be just focused on one company. All car manufacturers should be allowed to sell directly to the consumer, not just Tesla.

 

[Jack6591]

I agree, however, Tesla Motors is the obvious precedence.

Something like that should not single out Tesla Motors, it shouldn't be just focused on one company. All car manufacturers should be allowed to sell directly to the consumer, not just Tesla.

 

[CalDreamin]

In what way is California restricting consumers' ability to purchase a Tesla? Unlike some other states, California does not ban Tesla from operating Tesla stores, operating Tesla service centers, offering test drives, allowing consumers to sit in the car in a store, or delivering a car directly to a consumer. My purchase experience with Tesla in California was by far the best I've had in my 35 years of driving.

 

[astrotoy]

I don't think that is the OP's point. It is to get some California members of the House or Senate to sponsor national legislation. That would supersede any state laws prohibiting direct sales. Could be limited to pure EV's, but not to Teslas.

In what way is California restricting consumers' ability to purchase a Tesla? Unlike some other states, California does not ban Tesla from operating Tesla stores, operating Tesla service centers, offering test drives, allowing consumers to sit in the car in a store, or delivering a car directly to a consumer. My purchase experience with Tesla in California was by far the best I've had in my 35 years of driving.

 

[Benz]

If this is a good strategy, then it should be done, and we should support it.

 

[Jack6591]

My thought is this, the White House petition makes this a national issue. I am convinced the response from the President will defer to states' rights. If a California congressman with the right mindset can be convinced of the political merits of legislation empowering free commerce and innovation, that legislation could become a national talking point. A political issue that could be debated on the national stage.

 

[yobigd20]

I don't think that is the OP's point. It is to get some California members of the House or Senate to sponsor national legislation. That would supersede any state laws prohibiting direct sales. Could be limited to pure EV's, but not to Teslas.

No, the OP means at the state level. He means to use California as an example for all other states to follow. Once passed in California, then people could say to their own states 'hey why don't you follow California's model? seems to be working great there" yada yada

 

[lloyds]

this is going to be one tough call for the President. He's likely going to defer this back to the states to handle.

 

[Jack6591]

Legal Precedence

It has always seemed to me that that at least one state needs to establish "legal precedence" for the right to sell cars directly to the public. Since California is relatively progressive regarding renewable energy, and this fact dovetails into EVs and and a "solar electric future", it makes great sense for them to legislate this right.

Does anyone know a California state assemblyman, say one from the Fremont area?

 

[pbleic]

I don't think that is the OP's point. It is to get some California members of the House or Senate to sponsor national legislation. That would supersede any state laws prohibiting direct sales. Could be limited to pure EV's, but not to Teslas.

10th amendment to the Constitution prevents this from happening. The Federal legislature and executive branch has no role in this. Only the judicial branch can rule the state laws unconstitutional under the commerce clause.

 

[Jack6591]

No, the OP means at the state level. He means to use California as an example for all other states to follow. Once passed in California, then people could say to their own states 'hey why don't you follow California's model? seems to be working great there" yada yada

Exactly, the California legislature seems the likely to pass a bill enabling Tesla (and other alternative fuel vehicles) to sell directly to consumers. This political campaign (proposed legislation) would serve to demonstrate the advantages contrasted with the current dealer models.

 

[Ludus]

10th amendment to the Constitution prevents this from happening. The Federal legislature and executive branch has no role in this. Only the judicial branch can rule the state laws unconstitutional under the commerce clause.

I think the idea here is writing Federal rules that would supersede State laws under the Commerce clause. The 10th Amendment wouldn't apply precisely because the Commerce clause does give explicit authority over this to the Federal level.

I'd think part of this would be regulation and protection of contractual franchise relationships, at the same time it protects peoples rights to conduct business interstate without an in-state partner if they don't want one. It might spell out rules for dealing with issues that the dealer associations bring up like federally mandated safety recalls.

 

[Curt Renz]

10th amendment to the Constitution prevents this from happening. The Federal legislature and executive branch has no role in this. Only the judicial branch can rule the state laws unconstitutional under the commerce clause.

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce Clause):

The Congress shall have power...
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

A federal statute supporting direct car sales that is passed by Congress and signed by the President would be helpful. The federal courts would then become involved, if the States or dealerships hoped to invalidate it. The federal courts could also become involved, if there is an existing federal statute or legal precedent that Tesla Motors believes overrules adverse state laws.

I've been working on this issue with my US Senator Dick Durbin who is the majority whip. He may get together with others regarding possible legislation. Durbin is the one who first encouraged our other Senator from Illinois to run for President. Obama always responded personally to my emails when he was in the Senate. Now I'm using Durbin as an intermediary.

 

[Jack6591]

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce Clause):

The Congress shall have power...
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

A federal statute supporting direct car sales that is passed by Congress and signed by the President would be helpful. The federal courts would become involved if the states or dealerships hoped to invalidate it.

I've been working on this issue with my US Senator Dick Durbin who is the majority whip. He may get together with others regarding possible legislation. Durbin is the one who first encouraged our other senator from Illinois to run for president. Obama always responded personally to my emails when he was in the senate. Now I'm using Durbin as an intermediary.

Are you implying that California cannot enact legislation that would allow manufacturer's of alternative fuel vehicles to sell directly to consumers?

 

[Curt Renz]

Are you implying that California cannot enact legislation that would allow manufacturer's of alternative fuel vehicles to sell directly to consumers?

Absolutely not, Jack. That would be a fine idea. I was merely countering pbleic's assertion that, "The Federal legislature and executive branch has no role in this."

 

[Robert.Boston]

I think the better model is a bill introduced in the Massachusetts House. The text of the bill is found here: Bill H.241

What makes this bill great is that it requires car manufacturers to make a choice: franchise dealers or direct sales. Because GM, Ford, Chevy, BMW, Audi, VW, etc. have already chosen the dealership route, this bill makes clear that those companies can't go around the franchisees. For Tesla (and any other new entrant, e.g. BYD or Tata, who wants to use the direct-sales model), it makes it clear that as long as they have no franchisees, they can sell direct.

What I like about this bill is that it addresses the (legitimate) concerns that dealers have about protecting their investment in building up a brand locally, while not forcing all new entry to use the same business model. It also ensures that all new car dealers, regardless of whether they are franchised or manufacturer-owned, meet the same high standards with regards to public health and safety.

If the auto dealers oppose this formulation of direct sales, then it's clear they are just looking for their cut of all auto sales.

 

[Jack6591]

Would you write a letter or send an Email?

I am crafting an "open letter" to be sent to California elected representatives, (help me wizard (Curt Renz, et. Al)), with intent of kicking off a letter writing campaign.

I remain convinced that some number of California representatives will see the political advantage of advancing Tesla' cause.

My idea is to propose a solution that makes great sense, an alternative to the NADA position. As it stands they are claiming "rule of law". Laws can and ought to be changed.

 

[Curt Renz]

I am crafting an "open letter" to be sent to California elected representatives, (help me wizard (Curt Renz, et. Al)), with intent of kicking off a letter writing campaign.

I remain convinced that some number of California representatives will see the political advantage of advancing Tesla' cause.

My idea is to propose a solution that makes great sense, an alternative to the NADA position. As it stands they are claiming "rule of law". Laws can and ought to be changed.

Are your suggesting a letter to California state legislators who meet in Sacramento, or to California's representatives and senators in the US Congress that meets in Washington, DC?

 

[Jack6591]

Are your suggesting a letter to California state legislators who meet in Sacramento, or to California's representatives and senators in the US Congress that meets in Washington, DC?

I would like to post a list of all California state assemblyman, congressmen, and Senators. My thought being, somewhere in California is an elected official that would see the political advantage of running with this football. This is an issue that could take an up and coming politician onto the national political stage. The timing is now.

Let's write to as many as possible.