-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Michigan passes bill to ban Tesla!
- Thread starter Joel
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Tesla Inc.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
Maybe this had something to do with it:
GM backs anti-Tesla Michigan bill
I think Tesla's booth at NAIAS (Detroit Auto Show) in January should be one large sign under a Tesla logo that says:
Made in California
Banned in Michigan
GM backs anti-Tesla Michigan bill
I think Tesla's booth at NAIAS (Detroit Auto Show) in January should be one large sign under a Tesla logo that says:
Made in California
Banned in Michigan
RobStark
Well-Known Member
That breaks several international agreements that the US has already signed.
Federal Courts will side with foreign manufactures.
Professor Daniel Crane's statement to the media:
"This is an embarrassment for the State of Michigan and democracy. When no one was looking, the car dealers slipped language into the bill that would strengthen their case against Tesla. They went to the Governor's office and told his staff they needed this change in order to avoid the result in Massachusetts, where the Supreme Court ruled against them and in favor of Tesla. Then the double-speak started. The dealers denied it had anything to do with Tesla. The Governor said this morning that the bill doesn't "fundamentally change the law" but that it "strengthened the language." Which is it Governor? Does the law change anything or not? If it doesn't, why did the car dealers want the changes? Why are you signing legislation that doesn't change anything? Why did GM this morning come out in favor of the legislation on the grounds that it makes clear that the law applies to everyone? Who were they concerned it might not apply to? We've passed the silly hour--now we're living in la-la land."
Crane, Daniel - University of Michigan Law School
"This is an embarrassment for the State of Michigan and democracy. When no one was looking, the car dealers slipped language into the bill that would strengthen their case against Tesla. They went to the Governor's office and told his staff they needed this change in order to avoid the result in Massachusetts, where the Supreme Court ruled against them and in favor of Tesla. Then the double-speak started. The dealers denied it had anything to do with Tesla. The Governor said this morning that the bill doesn't "fundamentally change the law" but that it "strengthened the language." Which is it Governor? Does the law change anything or not? If it doesn't, why did the car dealers want the changes? Why are you signing legislation that doesn't change anything? Why did GM this morning come out in favor of the legislation on the grounds that it makes clear that the law applies to everyone? Who were they concerned it might not apply to? We've passed the silly hour--now we're living in la-la land."
Crane, Daniel - University of Michigan Law School
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
I'm not surprised. People are afraid of Tesla. Very afraid.
Is the governor up for reelection and does he have national ambitions? I think it would be hilarious to watch him get hammered for stifling innovation and getting in the way of competition and entrepreneurship.
So, it looks like we're back to square one. Tesla still can't sell or service in the state, and there's little reason to hope that will change anytime soon. Although I fundamentally agree with the reasons why the bill was not vetoed, it's disappointing to know the dealers have won again and Tesla being allowed to operate in Michigan is that much further from reality. The most disheartening aspect is there's no real motivation for the issue to be brought up in the legislature despite the governor's call. At least with a veto they would have been forced to bring the issue up again. We'll see if Tesla finds it worth the effort to keep up the fight.
Professor Crane has it right. The governor's statement contradicts itself and this legislation does nothing to help the people of Michigan. This is, ultimately, a raw deal that looks increasingly like an anti-consumer, anti-competitive protection scheme for struggling, scandal-prone "king of recalls" GM -- a point reinforced by GM's effort to support a bill that doesn't affect them directly at all.
This bill was a broadside against Tesla by a company and industry too scared to compete on fair terms.
The answer is yes. I see this as being little different than Christie in NJ. Please the $$$ people by signing the bill then say it is the legislature's fault and they need to address this issue in the future. It was the 'political' thing to do even if it was not the right thing to do.
I, like many of you, sent him an email. I feel this is a loss for Michigan Tesla owners or potential owners but does keep TM's fight alive and well in front of the national media. In the end, this will only help TM.
Phil Seastrand
Member
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
I wanted to post this in the politics quarantine thread, but it is locked 
(like "snippiness"). Anyway:
I must say that from a distance US politics is really strange sometimes. Why don't you guys stop pretending and 1) let people sell their vote in presidential and local elections to the highest bidder on an exchange (like the stock exchange) and 2) let politicians openly price their decisions to private interests and businesses, and let there be open competition as to who will pay the most to select which policy is being put in to place? Because obviously, at least #2, is happening today but it's call endorsements and lobbying I believe?
(like "snippiness"). Anyway:I must say that from a distance US politics is really strange sometimes. Why don't you guys stop pretending and 1) let people sell their vote in presidential and local elections to the highest bidder on an exchange (like the stock exchange) and 2) let politicians openly price their decisions to private interests and businesses, and let there be open competition as to who will pay the most to select which policy is being put in to place? Because obviously, at least #2, is happening today but it's call endorsements and lobbying I believe?
I wanted to post this in the politics quarantine thread, but it is locked
I must say that from a distance US politics is really strange sometimes. Why don't you guys stop pretending and 1) let people sell their vote in presidential and local elections to the highest bidder on an exchange (like the stock exchange) and 2) let politicians openly price their decisions to private interests and businesses, and let there be open competition as to who will pay the most to select which policy is being put in to place?
I agree with that. The going rate to buy Senator Hune in Michigan was $14,400. While he was cheap, I wonder what the going price for his wife Marcia was?
High-end car dispute revs up in Senate race
Show Me - FollowTheMoney.org
http://www.gcsionline.com/about-us/lobbyists-profiles/148-marcia-hune.html
Just to clarify the word "cheap." The auto dealers paid $14,400 to keep their monopoly. That's it. I'm amazed. Aside from being an unethical politician, Hune is a horrible negotiator. If you're going to sell yourself, the price should be higher than $14,400.
Last edited:
green1
Active Member
As awful as it sounds, in some ways I am cheering for more sales bans. Because the more there are in place, the sooner this is forced to a national level where it would be impossible to defend in light of the interstate commerce clause of the constitution.
Similar threads
