> The rationale given for the regulation change that requires auto companies to sell through dealers is that it ensures 'consumer protection'. If you believe this, Gov. Christie has a bridge closure he wants to sell you! Unless they are referring to the mafia version of 'protection', this is obviously untrue.
This really is one of the nicest pieces of PR -- corporate, political or nonprofit -- I've seen in a while; I appreciate how he starts off with a soft pitch ("the auto dealer franchise laws were originally put in place for a just cause") and only shoves the knife in once he's got the reader in agreement. Beautiful writing.
Although personally satisfying for the writer, that is a pretty good example of something never to write in a letter that you want to positively influence a situation. Referring to a scandal by a politician when lobbying isn't really going to work, and all letters addresses "to the people" are lobbying.
I gather from the suggestion at the end that the only option available to Tesla is through the court system, so it probably doesn't matter what he writes about the governor. If the only remedy is legal, you've lost political lobbying as an option. Save for votes, but the midterms are still 8 months away. Voters are forgetful.
I think it does a good job of reminding everyone that there's a trend of corruption in his opponent's administration, which is a pretty useful political trick.
Elon Musk is not running for governor of NJ, so viewing it as "a trend of corruption in his opponent's administration" is not advisable.
The other problem with this is that the Gov is still has popular support and Mr. Musk probably negatively influenced those people. Further, making this an actual political fight is really not something Mr. Musk should be looking towards because their is a fair amount of material the Gov can use on Mr. Musk.
Think of every attack that can be levied against the elitism of Silicon Valley and personify it in the person of Elon Musk. It could get quite nasty and the valley doesn't really do well in political games.
I think you may have misunderstood my comment, they're only political opponents in the sense that Musk wants to rally Christie's constituents to push back on this decision, and the battle is over public policy. Of course Musk isn't running.
Christie has a lot more to lose by his constituents seeing a bad trend in Christie's record than Musk has by any personal character attacks Christie could send back his way. Musk's job certainly isn't in any danger from bad things coming out about him in NJ.
I really don't think Christie has more to lose. I am sure he could "stick up for the people against the Silicon Valley boy billionaires" in some pretty interesting ways that would spread quickly. I can seen a "electric tax" as step one. After all, rich owners of electric cars should pay for the road like working class gas car owners. I'm sure he and his could come up with something else. The interesting part is how far any "reforms" NJ implements can spread. Politicians love new revenue streams.
As a consumer who may consider a Tesla in the future, I like and appreciate this dig. Christie did something underhanded again, let's bring it up to strengthen Tesla's claim that something fishy happened.
I can't agree with calling this underhanded on Christie's part. The law, while stupid, actually is the law, not a creation of the governor's or regulator's discretion. See his justification:
"This administration does not find it appropriate to unilaterally change the way cars are sold in New Jersey without legislation and Tesla has been aware of this position since the beginning."[1]
It would be far more underhanded for the governor to exempt a single organization from the rules. Yes, the rules are stupid, but tomorrow it's going to be a time when you do agree with the law, and it amounts to giving a bad guy some special privilege.
>Governor Christie had promised that this would be put to a vote of the elected state legislature, which is the appropriate way to change the law. When it became apparent to the auto dealer lobby that this approach would not succeed, they cut a backroom deal with the Governor to circumvent the legislative process and pass a regulation that is fundamentally contrary to the intent of the law.
How is this not underhanded? It'd be unilaterally preventing the changing of the law since he didn't even allow it to enter the regular legislative process.
He saw it coming and shut it down before it could go through the normal legislative process. Yes, that is underhanded.
that is a pretty good example of something never to write in a letter that you want to positively influence a situation.
Right. It does close the door to Christie deciding to do a turnaround and adopt the issue as a crusader for the people. Actually, considering that Gov. Christie is a politically powerful man with an apparent history of underhanded retaliation, I think it's really the last thing you want to do.
Alternative viewpoint: Christie may already be on his way out or on his way to becoming a lame duck. Musk clearly sees no future for Tesla as long as Christie's admin is calling the shots.
Remember, this letter is to "the people of new jersey" and not "the current governor of new jersey". Musk is choosing his venue, the court of public opinion - an arena where Christie is taking some major hits.
Progress and expansion isn't built with "expectations", it's built by repeatedly working on opportunities and winning where it was wasn't thought possible before.
Its really not much of a knife. A Silicon Valley billionaire comes with quite a bit of baggage these days. That happens when journalists need a new villain. Those bus articles aren't a cause they're a symptom.
Gov. Christie's office ordered the most heavily trafficked bridge in the country (if not the world) closed for political revenge. He is desperately trying to throw his staff under the bus to avoid accountability for this. It's a very delicate subject for him right now, and Musk bringing it up is cruel and yet at the same time (imho) totally fair play.
I love it, personally. Elected officials should be dragged over coals publicly for crap like the bridge closure AND this sneaky legislative practice he used to get the anti-Tesla laws in.
Completely fair play. To me, Musk is just pointing out that Christie is a corrupt bully (who would absolutely play this exact same card if the situations were reversed).
What everyone else said re: Bridgegate (thanks!) + the original line, which is a reference to the conman George C. Parker, who would sell things like the Brooklyn Bridge to unsuspecting tourists, which, according to Wikipedia, gave rise to the line "If you believe that, I've got a bridge I can sell you."
Chris Christie's administration closed 3 lanes of the George Washington Bridge for a bogus "traffic study", making tons of Traffic. It was political payback against the city of Fort Lee who has a mayor who wouldn't endorse Christie when he was running for governor. Christie says he didn't know about it but some in his administration have left or been asked to leave over it.
He starts off pretty neutral, addressing an issue of course, but not in a mean way. And all of a sudden you notice this subtle knife twisting in your ribs.
> The rationale given for the regulation change that requires auto companies to sell through dealers is that it ensures 'consumer protection'. If you believe this, Gov. Christie has a bridge closure he wants to sell you! Unless they are referring to the mafia version of 'protection', this is obviously untrue.
Nicely done, Elon. Nicely done.