But this really comes down to voting. Why does a better funded candidate win? Because a TV ad convinced some idiot to vote for that candidate? I see informercials and "work from home and make millions" scams all the time. But I don't buy the product whatever it might be. Yet voters seemingly are completely ignorant. So candidates who are well funded by special interests end up winning. But often these anti-competitive practices are in primarily Democrat controlled areas. Uber is a great example: Austin, DC city councils for example are entirely Democrat and thus beholder to "labor" and anti-competitive practices. This isn't exclusively a democrat practice, however much of the time it is. The NY and San Francisco war against AirBnB for example is about collecting more taxes. The anti-competitive closed-shop system is entirely democrat supported. The endless taxes and regulation of business is a democrat obsession. Certain national democrats sometimes go against the trend, especially the tech-oriented. But the boots on the ground Democrats are especially prone to anti-competitive tendencies. Protectionism is a hallmark of the AFL-CIO and they completely support (and significantly fund) the Democrat party. I'm not saying "Republicans are good," there are plenty of shit Republicans, however philosophically, Democrats are anti-competitive by nature because the concept of the free market goes against their core values of so-called 'economic justice.' Honestly ask yourself, if this Tesla decision were in the hands of Rand Paul or John Conyers, who would be more likely to support the free market in this situation? Would Ronald Reagan be more likely to support Tesla that Obama? Almost certainly, based on their records. Obama for instance through his supporters on the NLRB have opposed companies such as Boeing to build non-Union factories -- which is in-effect the same thing we have with Tesla -- an attempt to maintain a type of monopoly and artificially constrain the free market in order to serve a specific narrow group of voters and interests. That's what's happening here: the auto dealers, just like the AFL-CIO did with Boeing, are attempting to artificially protect their monopoly position, to the detriment of the population as a whole. I know this comment won't win me many friends here, but I hope that everyone at least researches guys like Rand Paul -- not the propaganda (in either direction) but what he actually says and stands for. If we can get more politicians like him, then perhaps we can start to realize that we can have freer markets, more personal freedoms and perhaps a government that knows when to get out of the way (and knows when to get in the way.) If anyone has the time or the inclination, read the book 'Economics in One Lesson.'
The politician called out by name here, state senator Joe Hune, is a Republican. The Republican Party also controls the legislature that passed this bill: they hold a supermajority (68%) of seats in the Michigan Senate, and a majority (54%) of seats in the Michigan House. And, the governor is a Republican. So I doubt the explanation for this case, at least, can be laid specifically at the feet of the Democratic Party trying to restrict trade.
The destructive influence of lobbying is not restricted to a single party, as you seem to be arguing. Off the top of my head, I would point to three-strike laws, which strongly favour the (privatized) prison sector, or hawkish foreign policies, benefiting armament and security companies, as examples of areas in which Republican-directed lobbies have distorted US policy.
