this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2025
184 points (98.9% liked)

News

28227 readers
4571 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Republished under their terms.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk and political groups he backs are pouring millions of dollars into the race for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court as the electric vehicle company sues to overturn a state law that prevents it from opening dealerships — a case that eventually could make its way to the high court.

Tesla’s multiple attempts to open its own dealerships in Wisconsin keep running up against a state law that allows only third parties, not auto manufacturers, to operate them. The company filed a lawsuit in January seeking an exemption, just as two Musk-backed political action committees started supporting the Republican-backed candidate, Brad Schimel, over his opponent, Susan Crawford, who is supported by Democrats.

Musk, who is the world’s wealthiest person and is running President Donald Trump’s initiative to slash the size of the federal workforce, has given $3 million to the Wisconsin GOP while groups he supports have funneled more than $17 million into the race. The contributions are part of an extraordinary spending spree in the race, making it by far the most expensive judicial race on record in the United States. Total spending has eclipsed $80 million with days still to go before the final day of voting on April 1.

Schimel’s critics have accused Musk of trying to buy a favorable ruling for Tesla should the dealership case make it to the state Supreme Court. Here are details of the law and Musk’s lawsuit:

Why can’t Tesla set up Wisconsin dealerships?

State statutes generally prohibit vehicle manufacturers from owning or operating dealerships in Wisconsin and give that franchise to third parties. The law was intended to prevent manufacturers from undercutting independent dealerships.

Nearly 20 states have similar prohibitions, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The laws took hold in the 1930s as carmakers started to rely on independent dealerships to sell and service vehicles so they could focus on production. Later, independent dealers wanted to prevent manufacturers from opening their own dealerships and driving them out of business.

Tesla sells its vehicles directly to consumers, who can have their vehicles shipped directly to them or to dealerships in 27 states. Because the company can’t set up its own dealerships in Wisconsin, buyers there must have the cars delivered to them or travel to dealerships in neighboring Minnesota or Illinois to pick them up.

Tesla officials have been working for almost a decade to secure an exemption from the law. In 2017 and 2021, Republican legislators introduced bills that would permit Tesla dealerships, but none of those made it out of the Legislature. They inserted an exemption for Tesla dealerships into the 2019-21 state budget, but Democratic Gov. Tony Evers used his partial veto powers to erase the provision.

The Wisconsin Automobile and Truck Dealers Association has been fighting to preserve the law. Bill Sepic, the association’s president and CEO, told The Associated Press that Tesla should have to follow the law like any other vehicle manufacturer. He said the statutes exist to enable third parties to act as consumer advocates “in making one of the larger purchases of their life.”

What is the company doing now?

Tesla filed a lawsuit in state court in January seeking permission to open four dealerships in Wisconsin.

The company argues that independent dealers wouldn’t meet its standards and says selling vehicles at its own dealerships is in the public interest because unaffiliated dealers’ prices are higher and less transparent.

Its lawsuit says that the state law barring manufacturers from running their own dealerships violates economic liberty rights and that the prohibition exists only to protect independent dealers from competition.

The case is pending in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, though no hearings have been scheduled.

The state Justice Department is defending the law. An agency spokesperson declined to comment.

How did Musk get involved in the state Supreme Court race?

Schimel, the conservative state Supreme Court candidate, is vying with Crawford for an open seat on the high court.

The race is the most significant election nationally since the November presidential contest, providing an early barometer for Republicans and Democrats given the intense interest and outside spending it has generated. It also will determine whether the highest court in the perennial presidential battleground state will flip from liberal to conservative control with major cases involving abortion, union rights and congressional redistricting on the horizon. Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates Susan Crawford, left, and Brad Schimel Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates Susan Crawford, left, and Brad Schimel wait for the start of their debate March 12, 2025, at the Lubar Center at Marquette University Law School’s Eckstein Hall in Milwaukee. The hourlong debate was the first and only debate between the candidates ahead of the April 1 election. (Joe Timmerman / Wisconsin Watch)

Eight days after Tesla filed the Wisconsin dealership lawsuit, Musk tweeted: “Very important to vote Republican for the Wisconsin Supreme Court to prevent voting fraud!”

To be clear, there has been no evidence of widespread voting fraud in Wisconsin. Democrat Joe Biden’s victory in the state over then-President Donald Trump in 2020 was affirmed by a recount and an independent audit. Trump, a Republican, won the state last November and offered no objections then to the voting or ballot-counting.

According to a tally from the Brennan Center for Justice, Musk-backed groups America PAC and Building America’s Future have spent more than $17 million to support Schimel with ads and flyers. The money he donated to the state Republican Party has been used to help Schimel, who has been endorsed by Trump.

Are the candidates focused on the Tesla case?

Crawford’s supporters contend the timing of the contributions show Musk is trying to ensure that Schimel wins and creates a conservative majority on the court that ultimately would rule in Tesla’s favor. Crawford said during a debate with Schimel this month that Musk “has basically taken over Brad Schimel’s campaign.”

Sepic, president of the state dealership association, said Wisconsin should elect the candidate who enforces the prohibition but declined to comment when asked if he thought Schimel or Crawford would do that.

Schimel has repeatedly said he would treat any case involving Tesla the same as any other when he considers whether to hear it or recuse himself. Schimel also has insisted that the donations from Musk and his groups do not make him beholden to them.

Crawford has said the same thing about billionaires who have donated to her campaign, including George Soros and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker. Soros has contributed $2 million and Pritzker $1.5 million to the Wisconsin Democratic Party, which has funneled the money to Crawford’s campaign.

Donate to Wisconsin Watch

top 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] imsufferableninja 93 points 6 days ago (2 children)

The dealership system is fucking protectionist bullshit and needs to go. There's no reason a manufacturer shouldn't be able to direct sell their vehicles. That being said, fuck this guy and his shitty cars.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 6 days ago

There's no one in the entire world that likes the current system except for the dealers. OEMs and consumers hate them and would rather move to a direct system. It's awful. Fuck Tesla, but direct sales are just a superior system and there's no reason not to move to them now that we no longer have the hurdles which once necessitated the dealership model.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 6 days ago (1 children)

No single person should have this much power. It goes against nature.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Manufacturers should not be prevented from selling their product directly to consumers. The enforced middle man balloons costs for everyone.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 6 days ago (2 children)

I’m not talking about that. I don’t know enough about that situation to have an opinion. I was referring to the fact that the CEO of a company is attempting with reasonable assumption of success to control the actual judicial system of an entire state to bend to his will.

That’s fucked.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

The United States operates on what is called a common law system.

Generally rulings about what can and can't be done are decided with court cases and upheld with precedent.

This is a fundamental aspect of how the system works, if any one person doesn't believe that laws are being enforced properly or that laws themselves are against the ideology of the country, they have the right and the ability to challenge it.

It's not really relevant to Elon musk in particular, anyone, including regular people can and have challenged existing case law to change (or create) both federal and state rulings.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 days ago

It's only possible because the law is asinine and upon being informed about it, people do modify their ballot choices.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 6 days ago (2 children)

What in the ever loving fuck have you been smoking to think this would benefit consumers?

Musk doesn't sell direct to keep prices down for buyers, it's too keep profits with the company.

Do you even know that you're arguing for increased wealth inequality?

If you were trying to be sarcastic, you need the "/s" because unfortunately lots of people legitimately think like that, so online we can't tell if you're trying to be funny or legitimately don't know how stupid what you just said was and actually mean it.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Turn it around: how does the enforced dealership model benefit consumers? What value is added by forcing people who want to buy a car to go through another entire group of salespeople adding their own overhead and cost to the equation rather than buying directly from the car manufacturer?

Musk's motivations are anything but pure here, but this is one of those "a stopped clock is right twice a day" moments.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

What value is added by forcing people who want to buy a car to go through another entire group of salespeople adding their own overhead and cost to the equation rather than buying directly from the car manufacturer?

Because it creates competition between dealers.

Because they don't outright own their inventory, so they are highly motivated to sell under certain conditions, and diversity of dealers means they all have to be competitive with the ones at that stage.

Like, peoples issues with car dealerships almost always comes down to experience in an area where 1-2 families own every dealership.

The problem is we're not taxing the biggest enough, and they swallow up everyone smaller.

If manufacturers could do away with all of the dealers, it would be like every brand having a single dealer

Every complaint you have would get worse

Quick edit:

Shouldn't need to be mentioned, but in a direct sale the consumer isn't paying what the dealer would pay. They're paying MSRP with no room for negotiation because only one person is selling that brand of car.

Zero "savings" is being passed onto the consumer.

Workers no longer make commissions, one of the few decent sales jobs is replaced by a guy that gets minimum wage who refills the candy bowl. Because orders are taken online and delivered to your house, the dealership is just a showroom

Like, there's just so many reasons this is bad it's disheartening to see so many people who couldn't think of a single one.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

All of the things you've listed there are reasons why dealerships should be allowed to exist. They do not address why manufacturers should not be allowed to sell cars directly to consumers at their own stores. Why would that interfere with the numerous benefits you've suggested that dealerships bring about? Consumers would still be able to choose to purchase their car from a dealership, so why wouldn't they? What could motivate them to go direct to the manufacturer?

Price. It's the price. Manufacturers can offer cars to the consumer at a better price, period. Not only that, they offer it without you having to sit through 2 hours of high-pressure sales and having to double-check every goddamn form you sign to make sure some rate or term duration hasn't "accidentally" been changed to a much higher value.

If dealerships were actually competitive they wouldn't need this law on the books to keep their industry alive.

[–] iAmTheTot 10 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Musk is a cunt nugget, but dealership laws are dumb too. Two things can be true.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Vertical integration and monopolies are a bad combo for consumers...

[–] iAmTheTot 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Car manufacturers being legally allowed to sell cars directly to consumers is not a monopoly because there's still a variety of car manufacturers to choose from.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Yeah bro, let's just keep planning 3 months ahead in a class war that's been happening for thousands of years, that'll totally be enough bro

[–] iAmTheTot 1 points 4 days ago

I genuinely do not understand what that reply has anything to do with the point I presented.

[–] Jakeroxs 1 points 4 days ago

Dealerships don't solve this at all

[–] [email protected] 25 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Car dealerships and Elon Musk both suck donkey balls. That said, a MAGA court will push through lots of toxic shit, even if they’ll throw you a bone and that allows for you to buy direct from auto manufacturers.

Car dealers are like gas station attendants in Oregon and New Jersey. They add little value and mostly increase the price of the thing I wanted to buy.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago

Gas station attendants don't have a major impact on prices from what I've seen. IMO the politics of the state and the distance from the Gulf of Mexico and other big oil points are the major contributors. To wit-

https://gasprices.aaa.com/?state=OR
https://gasprices.aaa.com/?state=NJ
https://gasprices.aaa.com/?state=WA
https://gasprices.aaa.com/?state=CA
https://gasprices.aaa.com/?state=ID
https://gasprices.aaa.com/?state=TX

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 days ago (2 children)

[serious] What's the rationale behind the only-dealerships policy?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 5 days ago (1 children)

My understanding is that the independent dealership model came about as a way to prevent the big automotive manufacturers from becoming too big & monopolistic. Imagine if Ford, Honda, and Toyota could collude on selling cars throughout the country. They could stifle competition by fixing prices, etc.

So state governments passed laws prohibiting them from selling directly, instead requiring them to partner with independent dealers who would be intermediaries in the sales process. Unfortunately those independent dealers have become mini monopolies themselves, with lots of political power in their pockets. So now that companies like Tesla, Rivian, etc. want to sell directly, the big dealerships are pressuring their politicians to keep the dealership model in place.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago

Thanks for the explanation!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

It's the car version of the 3 Tier system for alcohol.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Now I have more questions 😅

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago

Both systems are purposefully inefficient and byzantine because it increases tax revenue for the state (and bribes for the state government).

The 3 tier system is where alcohol must be sold by the producer to a distributor, by the distributor to a bar/liquor store, and by a bar/liquor store to the consumer. This effectively allows the state to collect tax 3 times on any one serving of alcohol. Unfortunately, it also results in higher prices and less choice for consumers. You can't just buy liquor on amazon and have it mailed to your home, you (sometimes) can't just buy from a local distillery, and you have to pay extra for the distributor to do a lot of not very much.

The dealership system allows local government to collect sales tax on resident's cars and allows local government officials to collect bribes from car dealers whose entire business relies on their competition being illegal. Without dealerships, you could just order a car from a manufacturer to be shipped to your home and you could buy it without cutting a dealer in, but the local government wouldn't get the sales tax income and your mayor or whatever wouldn't get to collect as many bribes.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago

how do we know elon is just an idiot with a lot of money and an inverse amount of sense?

he wants to open dealerships in wisconsin in this political climate he created himself and expects people to buy his substandard cars.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago

Good news, they can open delaerships any time, they just have to follow the law!