🔒Private-sector hypocrisy on display at state Capitol

When government wants to intervene in the private sector by adding new regulations, businesses often interject that the free market ought to be left to its own devices.

Indeed, tighter government controls over what companies can make or charge and how they can sell their goods and services are often considered anathema to business interests.

But that's not always the case, particularly in Connecticut, where two long-running and controversial issues have turned that notion on its head.

Specifically, we are talking about efforts by auto dealers to block Tesla from selling its electric vehicles directly to consumers in Connecticut and the repeated attempts by small liquor-store owners to block the elimination of government-backed price controls.

In both cases, a certain faction of business owners continues to lobby for a system in which government fiat restricts competition. We think it's hypocritical and time for legislators to reverse course on both issues.

Tesla direct sales

For the third year in a row, lawmakers are reviewing a proposal that would allow Tesla to sell its cars directly to Connecticut consumers, which is currently forbidden. Instead, car manufacturers must sell vehicles through traditional dealer franchises, which employ 14,000 people in the state, making them a formidable interest group.

Connecticut auto-dealer execs, who oppose the measure, argue that they've invested millions of dollars in a franchise system and that Tesla shouldn't be allowed to play by a different set of rules. They also say the current system provides consumer protections.

It's a weak argument, however, because the current “set of rules” have created a system that unfairly limits competition. Even members of the Federal Trade Commission have opined that states should ease prohibitions against direct consumer auto sales by manufacturers. Meantime, liberal states such as Massachusetts and New York have more free-market oriented systems than Connecticut.

We understand car dealers' desires to protect the status quo, but Tesla's entrance into the market won't upend their businesses, at least not anytime soon. The attraction of electric cars is still limited with their higher costs and current low oil prices. If auto dealers were truly concerned about the interests of customers, they'd favor a system that allows consumers to choose how and where they buy their vehicles.

Connecticut should start slow, allowing a few Tesla dealerships to open while working into law proper safeguards that protect car buyers.

Minimum pricing

Meantime, for a fifth straight year, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has pitched a plan to end the state's arbitrary minimum-pricing law, which smacks in the face of free-market capitalism. The law artificially sets liquor prices by prohibiting retailers from selling a bottle of alcohol below cost. The cost is equal to the wholesale bottle price plus shipping and delivery.

Minimum pricing does little more than increase the cost of alcohol and protect small package stores by ensuring they can keep their prices competitive with larger retailers.

We understand why small package stores are lobbying hard against the changes. They are fighting for their survival, and if large alcohol retailers can offer price discounts or charge whatever they like, it will be harder for mom-and-pop stores to compete. That may be true, but that's how the free-market economy works.

In both cases, the debate ultimately comes down to whether or not state government should protect one class of businesses over another. We side with letting consumers dictate market forces such as pricing and sales strategies, rather than state government.