Obama playing politics with Chrysler dealers? (Update)

Some interesting stories have been popping up lately which you probably will not hear on the evening news since they do not fit into the media’s agenda of covering for this administration. It seems that many of the closing dealerships are raising issues ranging from state protection of franchises to federal coercion of Chrysler to close certain dealerships.

This story from Reuters:

NEW YORK, May 26 (Reuters) – A lawyer for Chrysler dealers facing closure as part of the automaker’s bankruptcy reorganization said on Tuesday he believes Chrysler executives do not support a plan to eliminate a quarter of its retail outlets.

Lawyer Leonard Bellavia, of Bellavia Gentile & Associates, who represents some of the terminated dealers, said he deposed Chrysler President Jim Press on Tuesday and came away with the impression that Press did not support the plan.

“It became clear to us that Chrysler does not see the wisdom of terminating 25 percent of its dealers,” Bellavia said. “It really wasn’t Chrysler’s decision. They are under enormous pressure from the President’s automotive task force.”

He added the government task force, which he criticized for having no members with retail experience was, in effect, attacking U.S. entrepreneurs.

“What is the next task force? Shoe stores? Pizzerias?” Bellavia said at an event in Manhattan to publicize the dealers’ concerns ahead of a bankruptcy court hearing.

This would appear as though it was the Obama administration, not Chrysler’s, which ultimately chose to close dealerships and, possibly, which dealerships to close.

Beyond this story is where the plot thickens. There are other allegations, being compiled mainly of anecdotal evidence, which suggest that the dealer closings were made by the Obama administration on a political basis, not as a sound business decision.

Doug Ross explains:

A tipster alerted me to an interesting assertion. A cursory review by that person showed that many of the Chrysler dealers on the closing list were heavy Republican donors.

To quickly review the situation, I took all dealer owners whose names appeared more than once in the list. And, of those who contributed to political campaigns, every single one had donated almost exclusively to GOP candidates. While this isn’t an exhaustive review, it does have some ominous implications if it can be verified.

However, I also found additional research online at Scribd (author unknown), which also appears to point to a highly partisan decision-making process.

Consider the partial list of Chrysler dealership owners, listed below. You’ll notice that all were opponents of Barack Obama, most through sponsorship of GOP candidates and organizations, but a handful through Barack’s Democrat rivals (Hillary Clinton and John Edwards in 2008, for example).

• Vernon G. Buchanan: $147,450 to GOP candidates and organizations
• Wallace D. Alley and Family: $4,500 to GOP.
• Robert Archer: $4,600 to GOP and conservative causes.
• Homer S. Higginbotham and Family: $2950 to GOP.
• James Auffenberg and Family: $28,000 to GOP; $6,000 to one Democrat candidate.
• Michael Maroone and Family: $60,000 to GOP; $8,500 to two Democrat candidates.
• Jerome Fader: $6,500 to Democrats; $2,500 to Independent Joe Lieberman.
• Stephen Fay and Family: $13,500 to GOP.
• William Numrich: $20,000 to GOP.
• Robert Carver: $10,000 to Democrats including $1,950 to Hillary Clinton, nothing to Barack Obama.

• Robert and Linda Rohrman: $24,000 to GOP.
• Frank Boucher, Jr. and Family: $18,000 to GOP, $1,000 to one Democrat candidate.
• Scott Bossier: $4,300 to GOP.
• Todd Reardon: $17,000 to GOP; $2,000 to one Democrat candidate.
• Russ Darrow and Family: $78,000 to GOP.
• Bradford Deery and Family: $24,700 to GOP.
• Charles Gabus and Family: $30,000 to GOP.
• Brian Smith: $15,500 to GOP.
• Michael Schlossman: $14,000 to GOP; $14,000 to three Democrats ($12,500 to Sen. Russ Feingold).
• Don Hill: $11,000 to GOP; $12,800 to conservative incumbent Rep. Heath Shuler.

• Don Miller: $2,000 to GOP; $1,000 to Feingold.
• Eddie Cordes: $2,150 to GOP.
• Robert Edwards: $1,100 to GOP.
• James Crowley: $19,100 to GOP.
• Stanley Graff: $2,200 to John Edwards (2008 Presidential Run); $500 to GOP.
• John Stewart: $10,500 to GOP.
• John Fitzgerald and Family: $4,600 to John McCain (2008); $2,000 to Hillary Clinton (2008); nothing to Barack Obama.
• William Churchill and Family: $3,500 to GOP.
• Thomas Ganley: $9.450 to GOP.
• Gary Miller: $20,000 to GOP.

• Kevin and Gene Beltz: $18,500 to GOP.
• Arthur Grayson: $14,000 to GOP.
• Eric Grubbs and Family: $26,000 to GOP.
• Michael Leep and Family: $19,500 to GOP; $4,800 to three Democrats including Sen. Evan Bayh.
• Harry Green, Jr.: $10,000 to GOP.
• Ronald Hoover: $5,250 to GOP.
• Ray Huffines and Family: $18,500 to GOP.
• John O. Stevenson: $1,500 to GOP.
• James Marsh: $8,200 to GOP.
• Max Pearson and Family: $112,000 to GOP.

I have thus far found only a single Obama donor (and a minor one at that: $200 from Jeffrey Hunter of Waco, Texas) on the closing list.

Chrysler claimed that its formula for determining whether a dealership should close or not included “sales volume, customer service scores, local market share and average household income in the immediate area.”

In fact, there may have been other criteria involved: politics may have played a part. If this data can be validated, it would appear to be further proof that the Obama administration is willing to step over any line to advance its agenda.

It bodes poorly for America and the rule of law.

There could be other explanations. For example, without a full sampling of the political donations of every single Chrysler dealership in existence, it’s impossible to say if this is an exception or the norm of car dealership political leanings. Is it possible that car dealerships, being entrepreneurial in nature, lean Republican more often than not making it impossible not to close dealerships which donate to Republicans? I can’t answer that.

Since I cannot say for certain, this part of the story is purely speculation and, until verified, cannot be relied upon as fact. I just thought it was interesting to share given the secrecy and questions surrounding the Obama administration’s control of the dealership closings. The dealership owners have been raising the most questions since they have been given almost no explanation whatsoever for why their specific dealerships were chosen.

What is interesting is how I have heard numerous stories from owners and employees of dealerships which are among the top sales earners for Chrysler. Thus, one has to wonder why they’re being closed.

For example, many stories like this one:

As an employee of one of the affected dealerships… First, this isn’t just Chrysler’s decision. They were forced into bankruptcy by President Obama. When Chrysler emerges from bankruptcy the Federal Government will be a junior partner in the new Chrysler. This is SOCIALISM! Wake up people! This isn’t about business it’s about politics and control.

My dealership is in the top 125 out of the 3500 plus dealerships nationwide…yet we are on the list. We are not small nor are we rural. We are in a large major metropolitan area. Our new vehicle inventory alone is well over $4.0 million. Is that small? Secondly, Chrysler is already “shopping” for dealers to take over the open “points” (another name for franchise) left by the closed dealerships. Again, you think this is just business.

Lastly, and more importantly, every state has franchise law in affect that protect companies from this very thing – being forced out of business under the cloak of bankruptcy with out the benefit of due process. This is illegal!

If Chrysler is indeed shopping for new dealers in these areas, how can these closings make sense?

One more story from the APP:

Chrysler dealers will soon launch their legal opposition to the company’s plan to cut 789 dealerships in less than a month, arguing the company has asked for too much freedom from state laws protecting dealer agreements.

Michael Bernstein, an attorney with Arnold & Porter who represents the Chrysler National Dealer Council, said the dealers may offer a number of objections to the plan in U.S. bankruptcy court, and that the case will enter some uncharted legal territory.

“If there is going to be any rejection of dealers, it’s in everybody interests for the transition to be as smooth and painless as possible,” he said Friday, adding “anxiety and uncertainty are not productive.”

The decision by Chrysler comes as part of the automaker’s plan to sell most of its assets — including the 75 percent of its dealers it wants to keep — to a “new” Fiat-Chrysler venture.

Chrysler’s request goes far beyond just ending dealer contracts. It would bar an affected dealer from selling any Chrysler vehicle or part under warranty after June 6. Any payments or damages from ending the contract would be left with the “old” Chrysler whose liquidation won’t cover the liabilities it assumes.

But here’s the kicker in that story:

Bernstein said under bankruptcy law Chrysler would have to show how its “reasonable exercise of business judgment” led to the closing list. While the company cited a bevy of standards by which it chose dealerships, Bernstein said it was noteworthy that Chrysler didn’t cite costs.

“There’s no cost to Chrysler associated with dealers. Dealers are a source of revenue,” Bernstein said. “A lot of people were surprised by the number of dealers Chrysler is proposing to reject.”

Dealerships are small businesses operated under their own revenue streams. They simply license the Chrysler name like any other franchise. One then, has to question, why on earth some of the top sellers in some of the biggest areas are being closed?

I believe there is a lot more to this story we’re not even seeing yet and much more may come out in the days and weeks ahead as this all moves forward and some dealers begin heading to court for answers.

Update

Fox News has now weighed in on the question of whether the Obama administration and politics played a role in the Chrysler dealership closings and they find little to be concerned about:

A preliminary study by FOXNews.com found that the data do not support the charges. Among the dealerships set to close, 12 percent of a random 50 selected for review donated to Republicans and 8 percent to Democrats. Of the dealerships remaining open, 14 percent of a random 50 selected donated to Republicans and 10 percent to Democrats. In both samples, the average size of donations was similar for both parties.

According to the sample, one major factor in determining whether a dealership was closed or not was the size of the dealership, measured by the number of product lines carried (the four lines are Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge and Dodge Truck). The average store that will be closed in the FOXNews.com sample carries 2.5 of those product lines whereas the average store that will stay open carries 3.64.

A Chrysler representative said part of the decision on consolidating dealerships was to reduce overlap and have the remaining dealers sell all three company brands.

“It makes sense to have all three brands under one roof,” Chrysler spokeswoman Kathy Graham told FOXNews.com.

Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin suggested that more Republican-leaning businessmen gravitate toward the car dealership business. She added that many dealerships deserved to be closed down.

“In any case, it’s too early to start painting them all as victims of a politically motivated witch hunt,” she said before encouraging the bloggers to keep digging.

Keep digging indeed, nothing wrong with that until this is settled. My initial interest was sparked by dealers who say they were given little explanation from Chrysler as to why they were chosen given their large sales volume.

My other concern, as stated above, was that without further investigation into the entire sample of Chrysler dealerships, some things are simply coincidences. In truth, the unpopular position to state is that some dealerships probably had to be closed, and it isn’t a bad thing. My concern lies in how much influence the Obama administration had in making the closings.

The dealerships are still going to court on various grounds, we’ll wait to see if anything materializes and update accordingly.

  • Path

    What’s the control group percentage of dealership owners who contribute to Republican campaigns?

  • That’s part of the issue being explored and investigated on this matter. There will be more on this story in the coming days. I have held up on updates until, perhaps, more concrete information is known.

    Until then it remains a coincidence though the questions continue being raised, not answered as new information is uncovered.

    So far it appears as though there are some amazing coincidences that I would love to hear Chrysler and the Obama administration explain, more on that later with new information.

  • Path

    That’s the point you don’t have any concrete information yet. Would it really surprise you if 90% of dealership owners are republican? I don’t see that big of a coincidence yet.

    Nate Silver of 538 did some actual research on the matter and found roughly 88% are republican. This is a non story unless you have some actual proof that the Whitehouse directed Chrysler in what to close.

    http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/news-flash-car-dealers-are-republicans.html

  • “That’s the point you don’t have any concrete information yet. Would it really surprise you if 90% of dealership owners are republican?”

    Path, I said that in the article which you obviously did not read through. I’ll re-quote myself for you:

    There could be other explanations. For example, without a full sampling of the political donations of every single Chrysler dealership in existence, it’s impossible to say if this is an exception or the norm of car dealership political leanings. Is it possible that car dealerships, being entrepreneurial in nature, lean Republican more often than not making it impossible not to close dealerships which donate to Republicans? I can’t answer that.

    Since I cannot say for certain, this part of the story is purely speculation and, until verified, cannot be relied upon as fact.

    I stated the exact same question you did. Please read the article before you attack me for not asking questions that I did, indeed, ask.

    I am not interested in falsehoods which is why I said this hasn’t been verified and, until it is, can’t be relied upon as fact.

    Nate Silver has some excellent statistics there and he could very well be correct. I am just not updating this story further either way until there are more answers and it’s been fully explored, that’s all. I was very skeptical from the beginning as more often than not, I believe coincidence explains things most of the time. However, there are few more questions which are still unanswered on this issue.

  • Path

    Why didn’t you quote the rest of that Reuters article then? And you automatically say first “This would appear as though it was the Obama administration, not Chrysler’s, which ultimately chose to close dealerships and, possibly, which dealerships to close.” When the next paragraph of Reuters says:

    “A spokeswoman for Chrysler said the decision to cut a
    quarter of the dealers was “not coming from the task force.”
    “Our position is that the market can’t support the number of
    dealers that are out there,” said spokeswoman Carrie McElwee.
    “This has been our plan for more than 10 years to combine
    Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep under one roof.”
    The decision about cutting dealers took into consideration
    factors like location, customer satisfaction, and sales
    potential, she said. Nearly half of the terminated dealers also carry non-Chrysler brands, and most rely on used vehicles for the bulk of their sales.”

    That’s the bad part of putting question marks in a headline. It makes it sound like your presenting a fact when you’re really not. Fox News is famous for it.

  • Path, please.

    You’re mad because this is even being discussed. I ultimately just want the truth in this story. I don’t believe Chrysler, Obama or the dealers at this point. I want to wait until the dust settles and examine what people find.

    You sound like you’d prefer to never know the truth in the matter, which is fine. Just ignore all future stories on this topic so you can stay in the Obama bubble.

    If this turns out to be nothing, I’ll be the first to report it. I’m not interested in spreading lies/rumors, liberalism is best defeated with the truth since it has no foundation to stand on.

    I kind of think this would be way too obvious for the Obama administration to attempt given the access we now have to campaign donation history on the web.

  • Path

    I’m not mad I just don’t like it when people spread unfounded rumors. If you had some actual proof I’d listen. If you don’t trust the dealers why did you quote what they say and automatically try to place blame on Obama but leave out the part article that said he wasn’t even involved?

    Have some actual proof before you make accusations.

  • “If you don’t trust the dealers why did you quote what they say and automatically try to place blame on Obama but leave out the part article that said he wasn’t even involved?”

    Very simple. Mainly because of course they’re going to say they weren’t involved, it’s what they do. That may be true but it may not be true. It can be assumed they deny this since it makes them look bad. I thought it could go without saying at this point. Hence why I link to articles so people can examine them for themselves as I don’t copy/paste the entire thing.

    Furthermore, many of the dealers have legitimate complaints and feel as though they were not given ample, if any, explanation of why their particular dealership was chosen for closing. That adds to the speculation.

    Once again though, I stated that this was speculation at this point, how many times must I point out what I actually said in the article? I went out of my way to offer alternative explanations as plausible questions, the same text is still there.

    “Have some actual proof before you make accusations.”

    The reason for discussing this is the massive list of car dealerships closing which contributed to the GOP. We need to know more before we know if that means anything or not, as I stated in the article. Furthermore, the questions by some of them asking why their dealership was closed when it was a top money-maker is reason to discuss, as stated in the article. Again, you’re mischaracterizing the entire article since I specifically stated this was an ongoing topic being investigated, not a proven fact. Thus, accusations weren’t being made, as stated in the article.

  • Path

    “Very simple. Mainly because of course they’re going to say they weren’t involved, it’s what they do.”

    Yes but it’s not the government saying it. It’s Chrysler itself saying it. You’re only pushing one side: Blame Obama. If you really thought it was only speculation you wouldn’t make the statement “Obama playing politics with Chrysler dealers”. Then try to hide behind it with a question mark. It’s the same spotty journalism fox news and others uses.

    By simply putting a question mark at the end of something, you can say anything without proof.

    “You decide Politics, a hot bed of Islamic Jihadists?”

    “Bush best president ever?”

    “Rush having sex with underage Dominican boys?”

  • “By simply putting a question mark at the end of something, you can say anything without proof.”

    Path, that wasn’t my intention, you need to relax. I don’t care what media outlets do, I’m not responsible for them. You’re purposely ignoring what I said time and time again which is that it was not fact, merely speculation. Do you care? No, you just want to attack me because you don’t like the question even being asked, I see that and it’s fine.

    I think you’re now the one making baseless accusations at this point. I used a question mark because it’s a legitimate question even though it doesn’t fit your political agenda.

    Your motives are clear in this case and they become more so with each response. Now you’re dragging Fox News into this, it’s funny.

  • Bill Hedges

    “UAW Announces Tentative GM Labor, Medical Agreement” (Update2)

    I think normal Americas get 2 week pay if fired ? UAW employees are different. Wonder why GM is going belly up ? Well the rats are running from sinking ship and taking big bucks.

    But hey, cuts to save money to keep afloat..No more viagra !!

    http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ajXNsL6tfJjg

  • Path

    “that wasn’t my intention, you need to relax.”

    Well thats what it shows. You have absolutely no proof Obama was behind this or even his taskforce. Right now its just hearsay from a lawyer.

    “No, you just want to attack me because you don’t like the question even being asked”

    I don’t like people spreading rumors with zero proof. Its like that story you had earlier about soldiers in Iraq who only got to see Obama if they voted for him.

    “I used a question mark because it’s a legitimate question”

    Got any proof?

    “Now you’re dragging Fox News into this”

    I’ve seen most of the major news outlets do it. Fox is just the most offten and obvious.

    Would you think it would be fair if I wrote a story about Rush Limbaugh with this headline?

    “Rush having sex with underage Dominican boys?”
    Because after all he did get caught with a bag of viagra in the Dominican Republic which is know hotspot for underage sex slaves.

  • Bill Hedges

    Grad

    “Got any proof?”

    UHH, “Reuters”

    ““Rush having sex with underage Dominican boys?”
    Because after all he did get caught with a bag of viagra in the Dominican Republic which is know hotspot for underage sex slaves.”

    Do it, just provide links, like Nate

  • Thank you, Bill.

    In fact, Path, the article from Reuters is titled:

    Plan to ax dealers not Chrysler’s decision -lawyer

    Reuters titled the article with the allegation, I simply re-worded the allegation with a question mark and began to explore. Direct your anger elsewhere because I frankly don’t care since I have no ill-intentions of spreading lies.

    “Its like that story you had earlier about soldiers in Iraq who only got to see Obama if they voted for him.”

    That was based on a firsthand account from a soldier on base there. Call him a liar, that’s fine, but don’t tell me I didn’t have supporting evidence. Everything I post has some type of supporting evidence. If it doesn’t have factual evidence, I state that blatantly as I did here, which you keep conveniently ignoring.

    The bottom line is that if this story was about President Bush, you wouldn’t have any problem with it whatsoever. I can guarantee all day long you used to read lies/rumors about the Bush administration you foolishly digested them as fact. However, since it concerns President Obama, you’re grasping for anything to discredit the story even being mentioned.

    I don’t digest anything as fact until I know it’s fact.

    “Well thats what it shows.”

    No, that’s what it shows to you because you support Obama and wish to discredit anything that questions him.

    Once again, relax. As I stated 50,000 times above, I am for spreading facts, not lies.

  • Path

    Bill did you even read the Reuters story? It says clearly that this decision did not come from anyone from the WhiteHouse. Nate even admitted it in the beginning. He just used the headline for cheap yellow journalism.

    You’ve never heard that Rush story before? It’s only from 2006 he even joked about it on his show. He did get caught with a prescription of viagra with four other grown men that wasn’t in anyone’s name on the way back from a vacation in the Dominican Republic. There is absolutely no proof that he did anything with sex slaves. I was just writing a sensational headline like nate. After all its only a question I never said it was a fact.

    I’ll put the link in the next post. Or just do a google search for Rush viagra.

  • Path

    “Reuters titled the article with the allegation”

    They at least said it was only hearsay from a lawyer

    “That was based on a firsthand account from a soldier on base there. Call him a liar, that’s fine,”

    Do you even know it was a Him not a Her or if he was even a soldier or even in Iraq? All it was was an anonymous e-mail with no supporting evidence. Do you report all e-mails as fact?

    “The bottom line is that if this story was about President Bush, you wouldn’t”

    Nice straw man. I’ve defended Bush before against unfounded allegations.

  • Path
  • Bill Hedges

    Grad

    “Bill did you even read the Reuters story? It says clearly that this decision did not come from anyone from the WhiteHouse. Nate even admitted it in the beginning. He just used the headline for cheap yellow journalism.”

    Then what you do is refute his source with yours. Name calling does not

  • Bill Hedges

    Grad

    “There is absolutely no proof that he did anything with sex slaves. I was just writing a sensational headline like nate. After all its only a question I never said it was a fact.”

    Not like Nate. Nate bases on fact. Then Nate draws logical conclusion.

    You_” I was just writing a sensational headline like nate.”.

    Sorry, yes, yours is “sensational”, and as admitted, not based in proof. Nates is

  • Path

    What are you talking about? My source is the same Reuters article that nate used. Plus the 538 article I already posted. Try to pay attention if you want to be part of the conversation.

  • Bill Hedges

    Grad

    You are sweet

  • Path

    “Not like Nate. Nate bases on fact. Then Nate draws logical conclusion. Sorry, yes, yours is “sensational”, and as admitted, not based in proof. Nates is”

    Nates Headline isn’t based on any hard proof. At least no more than my Rush one. I was just drawing the “logical conclusion” to what 4 men would be doing with Viagra in 3rd world country thats known for underage sex slaves.

  • Bill Hedges

    con·de·scend·ing (knd-sndng)
    adj.
    Displaying a patronizingly superior attitude: “The independent investor’s desire to play individual stocks may well worry some market veterans, but that smacks a little of Wall Street’s usual condescending attitude toward small investors” Tom Petruno

    Does not get responses

  • “Nates Headline isn’t based on any hard proof. At least no more than my Rush one.”

    Path, this is pointless, you’re not even reading my responses.

    I never said there was “hard proof,” I specifically stated there wasn’t any hard proof, only speculation. This is a stupid discussion at this point because you’re chasing your tail and I have answered every one of your questions, I have nothing to hide.

  • Path

    You just don’t get it and probably never will. That headline is pure yellow journalism. It doesn’t matter that you latter say that it’s only speculation. You automatically assume that Obama will be guilty. And then you leave out the part where Chrysler gives a handful of reasons for closing dealerships and says this is all nonsense. You’re no better than the people on the far left who wanted to blame Bush for everything and ignored everything else.

  • Don’t care, you’re a broken record. Story was updated as it would have been without your complaints, stop crying and go have a cookie.

  • Bill Hedges

    Gee, to think Obama woud support those who suppoted his campaign__Impossible…Right ? Nah ? Never ?

  • Path

    You’re the one who got worked up over nothing. Obama had ZERO influence on which car dealerships to close. Why would he care anyways? Given how much he was able to raise by such a large and wide pool any individual donations would be a drop in the bucket. Do some research yourself before running with sensationalist bs.

  • Bill Hedges

    Grad

    Arn’t I agreeing with you ?

  • Path

    My comment wasn’t directed at you bill.

  • Bill Hedges

    Grad

    Didn’t know you closed this open forum ? Sorry ?

  • Path

    Bill you can say whatever you want I just don’t always have to dignify it with a response.

  • Bill Hedges

    Grad

    I have empathy with Nate as well as agree with every word he has said on this article. And wish to defend his rightful statements. So, I do ?

    I defend your right to be quiet ?

  • Path

    So if you agree with Nate on every word how exactly do I agree with you? You were being sarcastic and I didn’t see a point to respond.

  • Bill Hedges

    Grad

    I feel you have every right to your beliefs? Right or Wrong?

  • Bill Hedges

    Grad

    I am concerned Nate will be scared with your “bs” directed at him

  • Path

    Right. But not all beliefs are right and people have a right to prove them wrong. Beliefs are not facts.

    Anyways I’m going out for the night and having a good time. I suggest you do the same. It is a friday after all.

  • Bill Hedges

    Have a non-drinking driver I hope ?

  • Bill Hedges

    Grad

    I waited til you left, would feel sad if you drank too much and harmed someone else in car accident. Nate wasn’t wrong. Rarely is he wrong.

  • Bill Hedges

    Below my bother’s email
    ………

    Subject: From A Detroit Area Dodge Dealership

    This sums up exactly what this Marxist president is all about.
    Mr Tamaroff says it all when he says,
    “Wake up America and we better wake up fast.”

    Read closely and think about what he’s saying????

    A DODGE DEALER?S PERSPECTIVE
    May 22, 2009

    As a loyal and successful Dodge Dealer for over 22 years it is not a
    big surprise that given the current economy, the marketplace may not
    support the number of Dealers presently representing Chrysler
    Corporation products. However, the methodology Chrysler Corporation
    is attempting to utilize to reduce its Dealer body is unlawful,
    unconstitutional, un-American and grossly unfair.

    What Chrysler Corporation is attempting to do, under President Obama’s
    direction, is to use the United States Bankruptcy Court in New York to
    terminate 789 Dodge Chrysler Dealer Franchise Agreements, arbitrarily,
    capriciously, and without due process of law. The so called criteria
    establishing which Dealers will be terminated is seriously flawed and
    non-transparent.

    Many of the Dodge/Chrysler Dealers are profitable, employ many quality
    employees, support their communities and provide the necessary
    competition to insure that customers receive competitively priced vehicles.
    By reducing the number of automobile Dealers you are certain to reduce
    competition and the undesired effect will be the increased prices that
    Americans will ultimately pay for the price of a car.

    Additionally, Chrysler is proposing to take away my franchise without
    compensating me for its value. I have invested millions of dollars to
    acquire the Dodge franchise, the Dealership facility and the real
    estate.

    Chrysler proposes to transfer my franchise and all the goodwill I
    created over a 22 year span to a Chrysler competitor, across the
    street, free of charge, without compensating me one cent.
    This is occurring despite my Tamaroff Dodge Dealership continuously
    achieving high sales, high customer satisfaction index ratings, a
    5-star Dealer status (Chrysler’s highest achievement award), and over
    22 years having built a loyal and satisfied customer base. It is like
    Crystal Night in Nazi Germany in 1938, but instead of the Nazis
    seizing private property without due process of law and compensation,
    Chrysler and President Obama are using the power of a Federal
    Bankruptcy Judge to trample and run roughshod over the rights of 789
    Dodge/Chrysler Dealers. By using the power and governmental action
    of the Federal Bankruptcy Court, Chrysler and President Obama are
    purposely avoiding all state laws and some federal laws which were
    specifically designed by lawmakers to protect the Dealer from the
    overwhelming power of the manufacturer. Furthermore, where is the
    due process for an unconstitutional taking of my franchise rights without
    just compensation?

    My fellow Americans, I am a WWII veteran and former P.O.W. who risked
    my life for our country to defeat National Socialism and Hitler’s tyrannical
    Nazi regime. Never in my entire 82 years (50 years as an auto dealer
    and mechanical engineer) would I have anticipated the President of the
    United States and an appointed Federal Bankruptcy Judge trampling on
    my rights, seizing my property and potentially causing me to go into
    bankruptcy and in the process acting as instruments of FACISM.

    President Obama is this the “change’ you promised the American people?
    Where is the transparency you promised on the campaign trial?
    To add insult to injury, Chrysler Corporation, at this date, will not
    buy back any of the Dealers’ new car inventory; inventory they pushed
    on the Dealers in the last 90 days threatening them that if they did
    not purchase the cars from Chrysler they would be remembered come
    “termination day”.

    Finally, the worst point about this “Executive Branch sponsored taking”
    is the painful effect of laying off our people, many of whom have been
    with our company since the beginning. They are like family. It is like
    throwing your kids out on the street, with no job, no money, and no
    health care. It is a heartbreaking experience for the employees, their
    families and for me.

    Recently, President Obama made a public statement that he is standing
    by the Dealers. Yes, he is standing on their graves.

    Where is his leadership and foresight as he rushes to accomplish his
    agenda at the expense of 789 Dodge/Chrysler Dealers and their employees?
    President Obama and the Obama administration are directly responsible
    for orchestrating this ill conceived plan.

    My fellow Americans, WAKE UP before you lose your livelihood and
    private property without just compensation.

    If the Executive Branch and Judicial Branch can successfully complete
    this illegal seizure of property and transfer of wealth from one Dealer
    to another, then is any American’s private property safe from unlawful
    government seizure?

    As the great Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once said,
    “The problem with socialism is sooner or later you run out of the
    other guy’s money.”

    God Bless our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and Our Great Country.

    Marvin M. Tamaroff
    .