Christie shoots himself in the foot he can't even see (again) on Tesla Motors

[thatcrazycajun]

"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law."
- Robt. A. Heinlein, "Life-Line," short story first published in Astounding Stories of Super-Science magazine (now Analog), 1939

New Jersey Star-Ledger columnist Paul Mulshine thinks Gov. Chris Christie has torpedoed any hopes he might have had of winning the Republican presidential nod two years hence with the latest decision of his puppets appointees on the state Motor Vehicle Commission in regard to Tesla Motors' sales of electric cars in the Garden State. He explains why here.

In fairness, two points:

• Strictly speaking, NJ isn't banning the sale of Tesla cars (or any electric cars) at all, despite all the hysterical "Tesla Banned in NJ" headlines; they're just insisting that e-car makers play by the same rules old-line carmakers have to follow in the state. There is a legit "level playing field" and "unfair advantage" argument to be made here...but as the political consultants say, the optics are very bad for the "17 millionaires in each legislative district" NJCAR has in the state...especially considering that every last red cent of the lobbying cash on this issue has been from their side. They're also very bad for Christie, both as governor and as a prospective candidate for the White House in 2016, since he gives every appearance of (a) having been bought and paid for by NJCAR and (b) standing in the way of business innovation, usually anathema in the GOP.


• Personally, I do think buying a car (or a house, for that matter) shouldn't be the same as buying an iPad; this is a way more major purchase, and there's something to be said for physically going to a brick-and-mortar store, kicking the tires and test-driving the merchandise before signing on the proverbial dotted line. But as the article notes, there's also something to be said for the (significant) cost savings of cutting out the middleman...and again, it sure as hell looks like the old guard is trying to stifle progress and competition for its own self-interest, with help from the current administration in Trenton.

What do you think? Should Tesla have to franchise its sales to dealers to keep selling cars without running afoul of industry incumbents? Several states have passed similar laws and regs at the behest of their own franchisee lobbies. Or is this just a hopeless rear-guard action against the inevitable wave of the future in car sales?

Comments

[lemmozine.livejournal.com]

I think 2016 is looking better and better for the Democrats. I don't see that the GOP has anything resembling a viable candidate, or even a viable party. I am, of course, biased.

[jannyblue.livejournal.com]

Tesla has dealership stores in New Jersey. Owned by Tesla Motors.

New Jersey's new law is requiring them to use THIRD PARTY dealerships not owned by the company that makes the cars to sell them...

[hitchhiker.livejournal.com]

well, the franchise laws were meant to prevent car manufacturers from letting dealerships do the work of creating a market and then undercutting them by selling direct. since no one has put any time or money on the line in service of being a tesla dealer, there's no one the law really needs to be protecting here.