-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I believe that if there was interest a PAC that was focused on promoting Electric Vehicles in the state of Washington would be a very good idea.
The outcome of these bills is what convinced me. The overwhelming vote to pass 93-3 and 47-0 convinced me of the power of money and a strong lobby. It was also clear to me that deals got made behind closed doors. It seems like the final compromise was between key legislative leaders, Washington State Auto Dealers Association (WSADA), and Tesla. With WSADA and Tesla getting what they wanted and general support for EVs being pushed aside. Tesla fought for what they wanted and WSADA fought to get as much as they could. Neither was interested in the general EV cause (and why should they be).
I think those of us who lobbied as individuals did help Tesla's cause but I don't think my message (which was pro-Tesla but mostly pro-EV was really heard)
The other reason I believe we need an EV PAC is there are key upcoming issues that need focus. Just one example, continuing the EV sales tax break beyond June 15, 2015.
Some quick thoughts on a PAC:
- It must be non-partisan, the goal is not to fight general politics but to promote the EV cause
- It will be expensive, I believe we would need at least $50,000 in funds to make the kind of impact I would like
- I briefly considered a SuperPAC (with less regulation) since the EV PAC should be issue based not political, but I believe direct campaign contributions are essential
- The vast majority of time, the goal of the PAC should be to get along with all of the legislators (i.e. support incumbents) but occasional have the funds to play hard ball and work to remove an incumbent who is a true road block to the EV cause
The main challenge of course is fund raising. It would take 100 Tesla/EV owners donating $500 each to get us to the $50,000 goal I noted above. I think it is possible but would certainly take a very concerted effort.
Last thought is we could potentially piggy back off already established non-profit groups (like Plug in America) but they may not want or have the focus to get this involved in the politics of a single state.
----------------
I thought I would use data about the WSADA to give perspective on the numbers and ideas I outlined above. I do not think of an EV PAC as fighting the WSADA, I am using them as an example of how to get influence.
In 2012 they contributed $174,300 to WA campaigns (in 2010 $133,850) - non-election years are not expensive of course.
They were mostly non-partisan 47% to Democrats 52% to Republicans. They donated to almost every campaign. 137 separate candidates got donations. The contributed mostly to incumbents and mostly to winners (111 incumbents and 2 challengers, and both of those were state wide - they contributed to both gubernatorial candidates) (121 winners and 10 losers).
The average donation was roughly $1000 per candidate and only few at $1800 or more.
I am hoping because the EV issue is pro-consumer and non-political we can make do with less funds and still get an impact but I believe that tens of thousands will be needed to make a real impact.
Thoughts?
The outcome of these bills is what convinced me. The overwhelming vote to pass 93-3 and 47-0 convinced me of the power of money and a strong lobby. It was also clear to me that deals got made behind closed doors. It seems like the final compromise was between key legislative leaders, Washington State Auto Dealers Association (WSADA), and Tesla. With WSADA and Tesla getting what they wanted and general support for EVs being pushed aside. Tesla fought for what they wanted and WSADA fought to get as much as they could. Neither was interested in the general EV cause (and why should they be).
I think those of us who lobbied as individuals did help Tesla's cause but I don't think my message (which was pro-Tesla but mostly pro-EV was really heard)
The other reason I believe we need an EV PAC is there are key upcoming issues that need focus. Just one example, continuing the EV sales tax break beyond June 15, 2015.
Some quick thoughts on a PAC:
- It must be non-partisan, the goal is not to fight general politics but to promote the EV cause
- It will be expensive, I believe we would need at least $50,000 in funds to make the kind of impact I would like
- I briefly considered a SuperPAC (with less regulation) since the EV PAC should be issue based not political, but I believe direct campaign contributions are essential
- The vast majority of time, the goal of the PAC should be to get along with all of the legislators (i.e. support incumbents) but occasional have the funds to play hard ball and work to remove an incumbent who is a true road block to the EV cause
The main challenge of course is fund raising. It would take 100 Tesla/EV owners donating $500 each to get us to the $50,000 goal I noted above. I think it is possible but would certainly take a very concerted effort.
Last thought is we could potentially piggy back off already established non-profit groups (like Plug in America) but they may not want or have the focus to get this involved in the politics of a single state.
----------------
I thought I would use data about the WSADA to give perspective on the numbers and ideas I outlined above. I do not think of an EV PAC as fighting the WSADA, I am using them as an example of how to get influence.
In 2012 they contributed $174,300 to WA campaigns (in 2010 $133,850) - non-election years are not expensive of course.
They were mostly non-partisan 47% to Democrats 52% to Republicans. They donated to almost every campaign. 137 separate candidates got donations. The contributed mostly to incumbents and mostly to winners (111 incumbents and 2 challengers, and both of those were state wide - they contributed to both gubernatorial candidates) (121 winners and 10 losers).
The average donation was roughly $1000 per candidate and only few at $1800 or more.
I am hoping because the EV issue is pro-consumer and non-political we can make do with less funds and still get an impact but I believe that tens of thousands will be needed to make a real impact.
Thoughts?
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Obviously there is no way to match the money power of dealer's association - unless we get contributions from manufacturers.
An outlandish idea would be to get a proposal on the ballot to abolish the franchise laws.
An outlandish idea would be to get a proposal on the ballot to abolish the franchise laws.
Six: great post. Does anyone here have experience setting something up and running something like this ? Would have to be volunteer basis I'd imagine or very low overhead.
Maybe a better use of funds is support fewer candidates but with higher dollar amount.
A ballot would be a great idea but I bet you'd see a multimillion dollar campaign to fight that from the dealers.
Maybe a better use of funds is support fewer candidates but with higher dollar amount.
A ballot would be a great idea but I bet you'd see a multimillion dollar campaign to fight that from the dealers.
I agree that matching the money power of the dealers would be tough. But 100 $500 donors a year would get you $100,000 for each elections cycle. Is that a tough goal, IMHO very tough. Is it impossible. I don't think so.
I would love to get rid of the franchise laws altogether but that would be a huge fight that would be incredible well funded against (from inside and outside the state. Dealer associations around the country would not want that precedent). I think the Dealers and an EV lobby group would have many issues in common and would rather work in a non-confrontational way as much as possible. But just my opinions. I understand your points.
I don't believe a PAC for EV is necessary beyond what PIA is doing.
Tesla will look out for its own interest and it showed on the amendments to the bill. Tesla got their exemption and called it a day. And I don't blame them. The automotive dealer association got what they wanted as well, strengthened protectionist laws with exemption given ONLY to Tesla and no future manufacturers.
The PAC we setup, IMHO, will need to go up against the dealers directly to change the current auto sales model. This goes beyond Tesla and beyond EV's. It'll be a PAC strictly designed to go up against the dealerships. That's a REALLY REALLY tall order. As Six said, as soon as there's even a remote possibility of setting a precedence for other states, now you're talking funding from out of state lobbying.
What would be a possibility that we can consider is initiatives. I'm not a politics guy so feel free to correct me. Washington Initiatives was setup specifically so that little guys can bring ideas to the people for a vote. Lord knows Tim Eyman sure took advantage of them. Through the initiatives process, we may be able to put into law, something as simple as, "Any auto manufacturer without any established franchised dealership in the state of washington shall be allowed to sell cars directly to the consumers". The rest would be up for the courts to decide and the auto manufacturers will deep pockets can handle the rest.
Just a thought from an opinionated lazy bum not willing to do the tough leg work.
Tesla will look out for its own interest and it showed on the amendments to the bill. Tesla got their exemption and called it a day. And I don't blame them. The automotive dealer association got what they wanted as well, strengthened protectionist laws with exemption given ONLY to Tesla and no future manufacturers.
The PAC we setup, IMHO, will need to go up against the dealers directly to change the current auto sales model. This goes beyond Tesla and beyond EV's. It'll be a PAC strictly designed to go up against the dealerships. That's a REALLY REALLY tall order. As Six said, as soon as there's even a remote possibility of setting a precedence for other states, now you're talking funding from out of state lobbying.
What would be a possibility that we can consider is initiatives. I'm not a politics guy so feel free to correct me. Washington Initiatives was setup specifically so that little guys can bring ideas to the people for a vote. Lord knows Tim Eyman sure took advantage of them. Through the initiatives process, we may be able to put into law, something as simple as, "Any auto manufacturer without any established franchised dealership in the state of washington shall be allowed to sell cars directly to the consumers". The rest would be up for the courts to decide and the auto manufacturers will deep pockets can handle the rest.
Just a thought from an opinionated lazy bum not willing to do the tough leg work.
ChadS
Last tank of gas: March 2009
As a 501c3, Plug In America can only do limited lobbying.
A year or so ago, we spent some time and money trying to set up an independent 501c4 that could work with existing manufacturers to lobby together on EV issues. Granted, EV issues overlap with, but are distinct from, dealer issues; so this effort could be different. But I can say we got exactly zero interest from existing manufacturers. Of course new manufacturers may be interested...but their pockets will not be nearly as deep.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
I think we should propose this more as a green initiative than a anti-dealer initiative. Essentially "Any auto manufacturer shall be allowed to sell ZEV cars directly to the consumers".
If we are thinking about initiatives, we should go big. If we want a legislative push, think small.
- - - Updated - - -
Yes, it is going to be tough for OEMs to join a PAC to directly oppose their own dealers.
deonb
Active Member
That would be an empty initiative though. Traditional auto manufacturers are not going to set up dealerships just for ZEV cars, and Tesla already has an exemption.
Now if you make it a general initiative for all cars, there would be interest from auto manufacturers.
This.
I think the issues are getting a little confused. The direct sales model is not an EV issue: the Leaf and other EVs could be sold directly or through dealerships, and the direct sales model could be used by ICE cars, fuel cell cars, and any other kind of vehicle, as well as EVs. If the focus is on the direct sales model, then our strongest arguments have to do with competition and consumer rights, not the benefits of EVs.
Jack is correct: the best approach to opening the state to direct sales is probably the initiative. The dealerships are huge, primarily out-of-state entities (see http://wardsauto.com/site-files/wardsauto.com/files/uploads/2012/04/UsaDe02_2012.pdf), with more state-level clout and money to spend than the manufacturers themselves. General Motors was actually lobbying against this recent bill, and you can see how well they did! Many dealership groups sell cars from multiple manufacturers, so they don't really care which brand you buy, so long as they can sell and service your car. There is no way that a PAC of interested environmentalists or consumers will be able to match what the dealers can contribute to political campaigns. But the initiative can draw the interest of consumers, who vastly outnumber those who own or work at dealerships. Plus, the arguments in favor of direct sales are much more appealing: people like choice, and those who want to purchase through dealerships would be free to do so. Moreover, the economic arguments in favor of direct sales are compelling. See http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/eag/246374.pdf.
Jack also makes a good point in limiting this initiative to manufacturers that do not have established franchise dealerships in the state. To allow manufacturers to compete with their own franchisees would pose an existential threat to the dealerships, and they would fight to the death to block such a change. There is no need to attack the franchise protections in existing law. There is really only one provision in existing law that prohibits manufacturers from acting as dealers. It is RCW 46.96.185(1)(g), which makes it unlawful for a manufacturer or similar entity to "compete with a new motor vehicle dealer of any make or line by acting in the capacity of a new motor vehicle dealer, or by owning, operating, or controlling, whether directly or indirectly, a motor vehicle dealership in this state." This provision stands out because, unlike the rest of the chapter, it does not involve the relationship between the manufacturer and its franchisees. All we would need is add a few words, as follows:
"(g) Compete with a new motor vehicle dealer of any make or line by acting in the capacity of a new motor vehicle dealer with respect to said make or line, or by owning, operating, or controlling, whether directly or indirectly, a motor vehicle dealership in this state with respect to said make or line."
None of these changes, of course, would directly promote EVs. They certainly would not do as much for the adoption of EVs as the extension of the sales tax exemption. Achieving those goals would require a different strategy, to which I have not given much thought.
I have a somewhat different take on all this. First, the bills, as passed, really aren't anti EV. They are definitely protectionist but really doesn't say anything about EVs. I don't think an EV PAC is a bad idea but given that there are few manufacturers that this prevents from selling (maybe a revived Fisker), I don't really see any benefit in the short run.
The car manufacturers that use dealers (i.e. all of them except one) are going to be very wary of angering their dealers since that is where they get a very large part of their revenue. They may want to sell direct but are stuck. What will likely happen is Tesla will launch the Model E (or Gen III, I don't care what it's called). It will be successful and start to make a dent in the other manufacturers revenue. At that point the most significant aspects of the direct sales model will be adopted (internet ordering, build to order).
On a separate track, Tesla will eventually wind up taking a protectionist state to the Supreme Court and have the protectionist laws overturned via the interstate commerce clause of the constitution. Though, the way that the WSADA let Tesla in may become the common approach in other states to avoid the constitutional law suit. Either way, Tesla gets to do business the way they want to.
The car manufacturers that use dealers (i.e. all of them except one) are going to be very wary of angering their dealers since that is where they get a very large part of their revenue. They may want to sell direct but are stuck. What will likely happen is Tesla will launch the Model E (or Gen III, I don't care what it's called). It will be successful and start to make a dent in the other manufacturers revenue. At that point the most significant aspects of the direct sales model will be adopted (internet ordering, build to order).
On a separate track, Tesla will eventually wind up taking a protectionist state to the Supreme Court and have the protectionist laws overturned via the interstate commerce clause of the constitution. Though, the way that the WSADA let Tesla in may become the common approach in other states to avoid the constitutional law suit. Either way, Tesla gets to do business the way they want to.
ChadS
Last tank of gas: March 2009
I want to expand on this a bit.
I agree that the bills don't mention EVs. I also believe that the dealer lobbyists weren't really targeting EVs; just trying to use the law to make manufacturers easier for dealers to live with. It would be tough to be a dealer; I understand why the dealers try to push these sorts of bills.
However, EVs could gain more from these clauses changing than gas cars would. Manufacturers and dealers are mostly fairly aligned in their profit models (although manufacturers get more profit from volume whereas dealers would prefer to get more profit per vehicle; this is why manufacturers give spiffs based on numbers sold, and dealers curse and try to move as many, even at a loss, to hit the numbers and get the spiff) for most cars. But with EVs, manufacturers have to sell them but dealers don't. They cost dealers more to sell (far more time answering questions), plus they make less money on service (where most US dealers make most of their money - see the previous bit about the cars being very low margin for the dealers), so as things stand manufacturers are far more incented do more for EVs than dealers. In fact I think a large part of automaker reluctance on EVs is due to dealer reluctance - if manufacturers had a way around dealers, I think we would see more and better EVs on the market.
Direct sales and/or more manufacturer control are not EV issues per se, but they can help EVs. Of course, they're not the only way to help EVs, and I focus most of my attention on other areas. I only get involved in this when local lobbyists are actively trying to make the laws worse for EVs (whether EVs are their target or not).
Last edited:
The interstate commerce clause simply gives Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states. It doesn't confer a general right of people and companies to engage in interstate commerce. In order for Tesla to have a case under the clause, Congress would first have to pass legislation prohibiting states from banning direct sales. Tesla might have a case under the Sherman Act and other antitrust laws, but even there, a "state action" exemption would likely allow these protectionist laws. I think the legal battle would be uphill, which is why a political battle (either in Congress or through the initiative process) appears to me to be more promising.
My own interest in exploring a EV PAC goes beyond the issue of direct sales. Though that does matter and I took time off from work to try and lobby to prevent expanding the ban.
A simple example: The EV sales tax exemption in WA expires in June 2015. I would like it to be extended. I think we will need a lot of work to accomplish this.
Other issues include expansion of charging stations for all EVs. Support for Green highways, ...
The lesson I took from this bill passing 143-3, was that getting your agenda moved forward in Olympia takes money, even if that agenda is consumer focused and seemingly non-political. I am sure I should have already realized that
A simple example: The EV sales tax exemption in WA expires in June 2015. I would like it to be extended. I think we will need a lot of work to accomplish this.
Other issues include expansion of charging stations for all EVs. Support for Green highways, ...
The lesson I took from this bill passing 143-3, was that getting your agenda moved forward in Olympia takes money, even if that agenda is consumer focused and seemingly non-political. I am sure I should have already realized that
Those things I agree with as well but I believe Tom and Chad and rest of the PIA group are in constant conversation with the powers that be regarding those issues.
Personally, I'd like to stick to anti-dealership agenda because a)I truly dislike the dealership model and b)I truly believe the dealership model is anti-innovation/competition. I love Tesla, I want to see it succeed. But more importantly, I want to see more EV's to compete. Competition drives innovation.
If GM or Toyota or Nissan wants a separate brand for EV's and do the direct sales model, I absolutely welcome the idea. I certainly don't want to see decades old law that nobody actually likes to stand in the way.
If Apple can have a store and also sell stuff @ Best Buy at the same time, then I feel no sympathy for the poor stealerships owned by millionaires.
The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/ronaldreag128358.html#OjEq4yyk6TsGsl9Z.99
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/ronaldreag128358.html#OjEq4yyk6TsGsl9Z.99
Personally, I'd like to stick to anti-dealership agenda because a)I truly dislike the dealership model and b)I truly believe the dealership model is anti-innovation/competition. I love Tesla, I want to see it succeed. But more importantly, I want to see more EV's to compete. Competition drives innovation.
If GM or Toyota or Nissan wants a separate brand for EV's and do the direct sales model, I absolutely welcome the idea. I certainly don't want to see decades old law that nobody actually likes to stand in the way.
If Apple can have a store and also sell stuff @ Best Buy at the same time, then I feel no sympathy for the poor stealerships owned by millionaires.
My own interest in exploring a EV PAC goes beyond the issue of direct sales. Though that does matter and I took time off from work to try and lobby to prevent expanding the ban.
A simple example: The EV sales tax exemption in WA expires in June 2015. I would like it to be extended. I think we will need a lot of work to accomplish this.
Other issues include expansion of charging stations for all EVs. Support for Green highways, ...
The lesson I took from this bill passing 143-3, was that getting your agenda moved forward in Olympia takes money, even if that agenda is consumer focused and seemingly non-political. I am sure I should have already realized that
Out of state businesses can sell to Washingtonians, but if they wish to locate facilities in the state for selling and servicing the cars, they need a license, which the state has the right to regulate. If Congress thinks those regulations are a burden on interstate commerce, it can enact legislation to correct that. I agree that if the state tried to preclude the internet sale and delivery (as Texas or somebody tried to do) it would have a problem.
I heard that there was an EV charging bill that was voted on while we were in Olympia. I found it to be a bit disturbing that there was a bill about charging that was being acted on that the EV community didn't even know about. If a PAC is put together, I'd like to see it to include any EV issues that come up including charging, condo owner rules and other things that are obstacles to EV adoption. It would be nice if we could be a resource for input regarding EV charging grants too.
I am willing to help out with a PAC but I have no idea what kind of charter or registration it needs. Hopefully there is an attorney amongst us that could advise us. I suppose we could dig up registrations using the public information act to see how it has been done.
It doesn't take as much money as you may think to get an ear. I give to a few campaigns (State and Federal) and they are calling me all the time. I write a note and I get a personal letter back. I don't give a large amount either. I get invitations to events as well. I think that certain organizations that are looking for special favors have to contribute more. Some causes just make sense and make the legislators feel good.
Feel free to PM me if you have ideas. Maybe we can meet up and hash out some ideas. A mission, vision and values statement is a good starting point.
I am willing to help out with a PAC but I have no idea what kind of charter or registration it needs. Hopefully there is an attorney amongst us that could advise us. I suppose we could dig up registrations using the public information act to see how it has been done.
It doesn't take as much money as you may think to get an ear. I give to a few campaigns (State and Federal) and they are calling me all the time. I write a note and I get a personal letter back. I don't give a large amount either. I get invitations to events as well. I think that certain organizations that are looking for special favors have to contribute more. Some causes just make sense and make the legislators feel good.
Feel free to PM me if you have ideas. Maybe we can meet up and hash out some ideas. A mission, vision and values statement is a good starting point.
Similar threads
- Article
