Skip to main content

Insider Dealing: Car Dealer Protectionism Run Amuck


Imagine you wanted to open a restaurant. Imagine you were allowed to cook the food yourself, but you were prohibited by law from serving it to customers yourself; instead, you were forced to hire a waiter. Next, imagine that the waiter wasn’t pulling his weight, but you weren’t allowed to fire him unless you could prove you had good cause, and the people you had to prove it to were the waiters friends, who also happened to be employed as waiters. Finally, imagine that you had to get permission from the waiter before you could hire another waiter. If he refused, you could appeal his decision… to that same group of his waiter friends. Each of these imaginary scenarios is a close analogy to the very real laws that hinder the distribution of new cars. 

Car manufacturers are not allowed to sell directly to consumers. They can make the vehicle, but then must hire dealers (a.k.a. waiters) to interact with consumers. These state-mandated middlemen will surely want a cut of each sale, making the price consumers pay higher than it might otherwise be. 

Car dealers have powerful protections to keep themselves inserted firmly between makers and consumers. Once a dealer selects a franchisee to represent a particular area, the manufacturer must show good cause to revoke the franchise, even if the contract term has expired. It also includes the dealer’s heirs and whomever he wants to sell to. The manufacturer must have a good reason to remove a franchisee or to reject his chosen successor. And the people who second-guess the manufacturer’s decision are a commission of other car dealers in Oklahoma, who are protected by those same laws, and have a financial interest in making sure they are broadly enforced. 

Dealers also enjoy exclusive territories. If a manufacturer wants to put a new dealership within 15 miles of an existing dealer of the same line-make, they must give notice to the existing dealer, who has the opportunity to object. When the dealer objects, the manufacturer can appeal. The appeal goes before the same commission composed of car dealers - still with a vested interest in making sure there aren’t too many dealers in the state. But here, instead of looking out for a fellow dealer in the hopes that someday he might do the same for them, the commissioners have an interest in keeping the number of dealers small. The scope of this conflict of interest will depend somewhat on where the commissioner/dealer is in relation to the proposed dealer and how closely they compete. For instance, a BMW dealer in Tulsa probably isn’t too worried about a Dodge dealer in Lawton. But there is still enormous potential for a commissioner to have a direct financial interest in keeping a new dealer out of his market. What happened to the idea that you can’t be the judge in your own case? 

One more scenario: Imagine that when you go to buy a building for your restaurant, you are not allowed to hire a real estate agent. Even though you are a professional chef whose skills are in the culinary arts, not the art of the deal, you are legally prohibited from hiring a professional with expertise in buying real estate. Your only options are to negotiate yourself or bring in a friend willing to help you out for free. 

This too is akin to what happens with car dealers. But this time it’s not the manufacturer on the other side of the table; it’s the buyer. It is illegal to accept payment to arrange a transaction involving a new car on behalf of someone else. And it’s not some slap on the wrist: the first offense is a misdemeanor that carries up to a $1000 fine and one year in jail, but if you’re convicted again, it’s a felony - for nothing more than helping someone arrange to buy a car. 

There may not be a clearer example of naked protectionism in the laws of Oklahoma than the protection afforded to car dealers.  But what is the legislature so afraid of? If their dealers are really so valuable, won’t people keep buying from them? And if people don’t want to buy from a dealer, why should the State of Oklahoma make them?

Mike Davis is Research Fellow at 1889 Institute. He can be reached at mdavis@1889institute.org.


Popular posts from this blog

School Choice: I Have Erred

I should point out, before the reader gets into this piece, that these are my personal thoughts. Right around last Labor Day, I suddenly had a thought. I quickly made a calculation and realized that, as of the day after Labor Day, I’ve worked full-time in public policy for 25 years – a quarter of a century. While there really is nothing fundamentally more special about a 25 th anniversary than a 24 th or 26 th one, it is a widely-recognized demarcation point. Therefore, it seems worthwhile to take time and write down reflections on my career. My work has touched on several policy areas, but I’ve been thinking a lot about public education lately. That’s the area I practically swam in when I started my career, so here are my thoughts. On the day after Labor Day in 1994 I started work for a member of the Texas House of Representatives. He was the member who always carried a voucher bill, an issue for which I was thrilled to work. By that time, my wife had homeschooled our dau...
Read more

Present Reforms to Keep the Ghost of State Questions Past from Creating Future Headaches

Oklahoma, like many western states, allows its citizens to directly participate in the democratic process through citizen initiatives and referendums. In a referendum, the legislature directs a question to the people — usually to modify the state constitution, since the legislature can change statutes itself. An initiative requires no legislative involvement, but is initiated by the people via signature gathering, and can be used to modify statute or amend the constitution. Collectively, the initiatives and referendums that make it onto the ballot are known as State Questions.   Recently, there have been calls to make it more difficult to amend the constitution. At least two proposals are being discussed. One would diversify the signature requirement by demanding that a proportional amount of signatures come from each region of the state. The other would require a sixty percent majority to adopt a constitutional amendment rather than the fifty percent plus one currently in place. ...
Read more

Top-Ten in Low Taxes, But Oklahoma Still Has Much Room for Improvement

In a comparison of states’ total taxes as well as spending in certain broad categories that the 1889 Institute has just published ( Oklahoma Government Revenues and Spending in Perspective – Update ), some interesting facts arise. Using federal data, we compared states by looking at the percentage of personal income collected in state and local government revenues. We also looked at the percentage of personal income spent in six broad spending categories: higher education, public education, public welfare, hospitals, highways, and corrections. The data shows that in 2017 Oklahoma’s state and local governments: Extract 13.2 percent of Oklahomans’ personal income in taxes and fees, moving Oklahoma into the Top Ten lowest-taxing states, ahead of Texas.   Spend 12.38 percent of personal income on the six featured spending areas (which include federal dollars), only a little below the national average of 12.7 percent. While 9th overall (least spent being first), Oklahoma is n...
Read more

Legislating through Litigation

Oklahoma’s Attorney General and trial courts appear to now be in the business of taxing industries and appropriating funds to state agencies. These are powers that the Oklahoma Constitution explicitly grants to the legislature . They are certainly not given to the Attorney General or the courts. But in the name of mitigating a “public nuisance,” these legislative powers have effectively been misappropriated.   The $572 million judgment recently handed down in Oklahoma’s opioid litigation looks an awful lot like a piece of legislation. It purports to tackle a broad societal problem by taxing a company alleged to have contributed to it and using the money to fund government agencies and programs aimed at ameliorating the problem. The Court and Attorney General justified this approach by claiming an “abatement plan” was needed to counter the so-called public nuisance of prescription drug abuse. Besides stretching the public nuisance theory far beyond its historical application ,...
Read more