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

About Those Roads in Texas

A s Sooner fans head south for the OU-Texas game next week, they will encounter a phenomenon most of us are familiar with: as you cruise across the Red River suddenly the road gets noticeably smoother. The painted lane stripes get a little brighter and the roadside “Welcome to Texas” visitors’ center gleams in the sunlight, a modern and well-maintained reminder of how much more money the Lonestar State spends on public infrastructure than little old Oklahoma. Or does it? Why are the roads so much, well… better in Texas? Turns out, it isn’t the amount of money spent, at least not when compared to the overall size of the state’s economy and personal income of its inhabitants. Research conducted by 1889 Institute’s Byron Schlomach reveals that Oklahoma actually spends significantly more on roads than Texas as a percentage of both state GDP and personal income . And that was data from 2016, before Oklahoma’s tax and spending increases of recent years. The gap is likely gr...
Read more

The Problem of Diffuse Costs and Concentrated Benefits

Do you ever find yourself observing a seemingly illogical government program , spending decision, or other strange practice and ask “how is it that no one has fixed that?” If you are like me, you encounter this phenomenon regularly. This often takes the form of a curious headline (Save Federal Funding for the Cowboy Poets!) that most people see and can’t believe is real. I would like to suggest that this phenomenon often results from the problem of diffuse costs and concentrated benefits. To understand this concept, consider a hypothetical law that assessed a $1 tax on everyone in the United States with the proceeds to be given to one individual for unrestricted use as he sees fit. The people harmed by such a law—the individual taxpayers—will not be very motivated to spend the time and effort to convince Congress to change the law. They might resent the dollar taken from them for a silly cause they don’t support, but the lost dollar isn’t worth the trouble of doing something about i...
Read more

Perfusionist (What’s That?) Licensing: Making Heart Surgery More Dangerous

Do you know what a perfusionist is? I didn’t, either, but it’s one of the many occupations that are licensed in the State of Oklahoma. However, we at the 1889 Institute are gradually looking into each licensed occupation to learn if there is justification for forcing people to ask the government’s permission to earn money doing it. So, we got curious about these perfusionists, about which we knew nothing, and why they are licensed ( our report ). It came as no surprise that perfusionists use their skills in medicine. Nearly every occupation involved in medicine, other than custodians, especially in Oklahoma, is licensed. Yet, the majority of states do not license perfusionists . Perfusionists do perform an important service. They monitor and operate the machines that regulate blood and air flow of patients having heart surgery. And perfusionists have accidentally killed people, sometimes due to something as simple as failing to notice a kinked hose. We have previously rev...
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