Stricter regulation is almost always pitched as a way to protect the public, but it is often a way to protect the biggest players in an industry at the expense of competition.
General Motors’ state-by-state push for strict rules governing self-driving cars appears to be one such example, if this Associated Press story is right.
As the AP tells it, GM is pushing legislation in at least a handful of states that would pave the way for on-demand fleets of self-driving cars — but only fleets owned by automakers.
So GM could launch its own version of Uber, where you could order a robot-driven GM car from GM, but Uber couldn’t deploy self-driving cars.
GM, of course, has a public-interest justification.
GM supports restricting who can deploy self-driving cars because “public acceptance of the technology is going to be very critical,” said Harry Lightsey, a top GM lobbyist. “If somebody is allowed to put technology on the roads and highways that proves to be unsafe, that could have very harmful repercussions.”
Companies wanting more regulation on themselves as a way of keeping out smaller competitors isn’t rare at all. See Philip Morris supporting more regulation of tobacco, Mattel supporting more regulation of toys, megabanks bragging that regulation protects them, H&R Block seeking more regulation of tax preparers, or a thousand similar stories.
What is rare in this story is this admission:
Maryland state Sen. William Ferguson said he introduced a bill at GM’s urging in part because he hoped the automaker would expand its transmission facility near Baltimore, creating jobs.
The Democrat said GM lobbyists told him the company would “certainly look more favorably toward expanding in Maryland if there were a legal framework to test and develop (self-driving cars) more freely.” After the AP asked GM about the transmission facility, Ferguson sought to clarify his remarks, saying the automaker didn’t explicitly promise to expand its operations.
In other words, it looks like a Maryland politician is offering to kneecap GM’s competitors in Maryland if GM will do more business in Maryland.
Remember this story next time someone tells you that an anti-regulation agenda is big business’s agenda.
Timothy P. Carney, The Washington Examiner’s commentary editor, can be contacted at [email protected]. His column appears Tuesday nights on washingtonexaminer.com.
