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

Licensing Boards Might Violate Federal Law: Regardless, They Are Terrible Policy

Competition is as American as baseball and apple pie. “May the best man win” is a sentiment so old it doesn’t care about your pronouns. The beneficial effects of competition on economic markets are well documented. So why do we let powerful business interests change the rules of the game when they tire of competing in the free market? Most of the time when an occupational license is enacted, it is the members of the regulated industry who push hardest in favor of the license. Honest competition may be fundamentally American, but thwarting that competition through licensing seems to be fundamentally Oklahoman. Oklahoma doesn’t have the most occupational licenses, but when they do license an occupation, the requirements tend to be more onerous than the same license in other states. But what if, instead of merely breaking the rules of fair play to keep out would-be competition, Oklahoma licensing boards are also breaking the law? Normally a concerted effort to lock out competition would v...
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

When It Comes to the Cox Center, “What if I Get to Meet a Movie Star?” Isn’t Good Enough

In a recent   post , 1889 Institute expounded on the fiduciary duty of elected officials “to act in the best interest of the people of the state as a whole,” a “high duty, executed as a public trust … wherein one puts the people’s interest above one’s own.” This fiduciary duty must not stop with elected officials. Once an elected body or an elected official – the legislature, a city council, the governor, or a mayor – has taken final action, the faithful implementation of each enacted law, policy, or program falls to an army of bureaucrats. Thus, a fiduciary duty to execute laws and policies with diligence and integrity, tantamount to that of elected officials, must extend to government employees. Recently, I had a few moments to sit down and watch a show with my children. Unsurprisingly, my son picked a series entitled “The Stinky and Dirty Show.” I was naturally skeptical that the show would yield any real value. However, as I watched, I found myself pleasantly surprised. Each ep...
Read more

Robbing the Poor to Give to the Rich: Corporate Welfare in Oklahoma

Imagine that someone forcibly takes your hard-earned money and then simply gives it to a multi-billion dollar corporation such as Home Depot, Wal-Mart, or Boeing. You receive no benefit from this forcible redistribution of wealth, and the sole beneficiary is the corporation. You would most likely be outraged, and justifiably so. Unfortunately, this forced redistribution of wealth happens in Oklahoma (and the nation as a whole) all the time via a variety of state and local corporate welfare schemes.   Policymakers either take your hard-earned money (via taxes), and directly subsidize large corporations or give those corporations tax breaks nobody else can get. All of this is done in the name of jobs and economic development, but these favors bring very little (if any) benefit to you. This is tyranny, plain and simple. In fact, it is not unlike the sort of advantage nobility took of commoners before the American Revolution, only the modern nobility is just very good at lobbying. In ...
Read more