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.
Manufacturers should not be prevented from selling their product directly to consumers. The enforced middle man balloons costs for everyone.
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.
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.
It’s only possible because the law is asinine and upon being informed about it, people do modify their ballot choices.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Because the laws had to exist for dealerships to exist…
Traditional manufacturers aren’t going to handle business differently based on state law tho, so not every state had the laws.
Because Teslas only sell directly, there’s no market for dealers to gain new inventory.
For other states to sell directly and establish a monopoly in that state they’d have to somehow prevent sales from outside of the state from other dealers, there’s still not a monopoly because of that. That’s why Tesla benefits more than any other brand and why others aren’t pushing as hard.
I feel like I’m having a Brawndo moment, is all this not obvious?
If a business cannot exist without its competition being made illegal then it should not exist. Anti-competitive laws cut both ways.
What you’re doing is like arguing against laws protecting small businesses because if they can’t compete with Walmart they shouldn’t exist.
You’re not mad at the people that are the problem, instead you’re mad at people at the top of the temanent of the middle class
You think their disappeance would somehow transfer their wealth to the rest of us, when it will just be added to the wealthiest.
You’re ten steps deep into “first they came for” and still haven’t figured out the pattern yet.
For all our sakes, start thinking deeper
Bruh, wat?
Yeah, famously “small business”, those car dealerships. Right up there with payday loan places, and equally ethical. I can’t even.
Musk is a cunt nugget, but dealership laws are dumb too. Two things can be true.
Vertical integration and monopolies are a bad combo for consumers…
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.
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
I genuinely do not understand what that reply has anything to do with the point I presented.
Dealerships don’t solve this at all