NigelM
Recovering Member
I'm not going to try and pick out line by line quotes but I think that there are some misconceptions in the OP's argument:
* In 2008 I completed a research analysis for one of the major political parties in Florida looking at election spending from the local board level, through county, state and federal level. The basic conclusion after looking at many different races was, outspend the opponent and you've got a 90% chance of winning.
- Dealership laws in the U.S. are not there to protect consumers. The fact is that those laws are there to protect the dealers (franchisees). Also a fact is that those dealer protection laws are being twisted to try to prevent a new market entry (Tesla) from gaining traction.
- NADA clearly has two motivations, both of which are are (understandably) self-preservation based; they don't want Tesla to become a precedent for the big auto manufacturers to step around the dealership protection laws (let's call those laws what they really are) and they want cars on the road which require a regular, profitable service industry (EVs dont need oil changes...).
- The vast majority of elected officials in the U.S. have one interest - getting re-elected. In >90% of cases the outcome of elections correlates directly to the amount of money raised/spent.* Also note that politicians indulge in mutual protection so donating to one or two political campaigns will get a bill to the floor of any given chamber and (essentially) the politicians vote for each other.
* In 2008 I completed a research analysis for one of the major political parties in Florida looking at election spending from the local board level, through county, state and federal level. The basic conclusion after looking at many different races was, outspend the opponent and you've got a 90% chance of winning.