Right To Repair Bill Comes Before Congress Yet Again
Read the full story on The Auto Wire
For years, certain forces in the auto industry have been toiling away to get some sort of Right to Repair law passed on the federal level. While that hasn't happened yet, there's another shot with the Right to Equitable and Professional Auto Industry Repair (REPAIR) Act before Congress again. This is the sort of law enthusiasts, most people in the industry, and average car owners should be pushing to pass.What the REPAIR Act would do is allow private car owners and small shops to keep repairing vehicles by guaranteeing they have access to maintenance and repair info. For a long time, different automakers have been trying to argue that giving access to that information constitutes a safety risk, copyright violation, or anything else they can dream up.
That would mean with newer cars everyone would possibly have to go to dealerships or maybe some really big repair shops instead of wherever they'd like to have their vehicle fixed. With less competition, prices for repairs and even basic maintenance would undoubtedly skyrocket.
This bill is sponsored by two Republicans and two Democrats, so it has bipartisan support. Whether or not it has enough to pass the House and Senate is another question. If everyone voices enough support, it probably would.
The bill would also block automakers from stopping aftermarket parts companies from making cheaper components. More expensive parts and higher rates at repair shops would be crippling for a lot of vehicle owners, especially with how inflation has already hit families in the gut.
To allow all shops the ability to repair any vehicle, automakers would be required by law to have a standardized access platform for car-generated data. Such a thing still doesn't exist and it's becoming a problem.
It seems like every so often the push for a Right to Repair bill comes up, yet nothing ever comes of it. That's a source of frustration for enthusiasts, DIYers, small shops, etc. After all, without such a law, the risk of being forced to go to a big corporate repair facility, like a dealer service department, and shell out big money for things that should be easy to fix at home is sadly high.
Image via cottonbro studio/Pexels
Join our Newsletter, subscribe to our YouTube page, and follow us on Facebook.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump-Musk feud shows what happens when unregulated money floods politics
Elon Musk said, very loudly and very publicly, what is usually the quiet part of the role of money in US politics. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate. Such ingratitude,' he wrote on his X social media platform amid an ongoing feud with Donald Trump. When rightwing commentator Laura Loomer wrote that Republicans on Capitol Hill had been discussing whom to side with in the inter-party feud, Musk replied with a nod toward the long tail of his influence. 'Oh and some food for thought as they ponder this question: Trump has 3.5 years left as President, but I will be around for 40+ years … ,' Musk wrote on X. Billionaires in the US often seek to influence politics in big and small ways, throwing their money and influence around to extract what they want from the government. But few are as explicit and influential as Musk has proven in the past year – and it's showing just how transactional and broken US governance has become. The Trump-Musk battle exemplifies the post-Citizens United picture of US politics: the world's richest person paid handsomely to elect his favored candidate, then took a formal, if temporary, role with a new governmental initiative created for him that focused on dismantling parts of the government he didn't like. We're sitting ringside to a fight between the mega-rich president and the far richer Republican donor to see who can cut more services from the poor. As one satirical website put it: 'Aw! These Billionaires Are Fighting Over How Much Money to Steal From Poor People.' Fifteen years ago, the US supreme court ruled that corporations and outside groups could spend as much as they wanted on elections. In that ruling, conservative justice Anthony Kennedy said: 'The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.' In the years since, it's become clear that these infusions of wealth have eroded democracy, with Musk's ostentatious example accelerating an already out-of-control level of money in politics. Musk spent nearly $300m to elect Trump in 2024. It's the billionaire's government now. 'Fifteen years after that decision, we're seeing the full culmination of living under a Citizens United world – where it's not just elections that are for sale, but it's that our entire government, and the apparatus of our government, is up for sale,' Tiffany Muller, the president of End Citizens United, told the Bulwark earlier this year. Musk isn't alone here: in races up and down the ballot, ultra-rich donors are throwing around their cash to get their favored candidates elected. This is the standard state of play for politics in the US now, in both political parties. Bernie Sanders confronted Democrats at their convention last year to say: 'Billionaires in both parties should not be able to buy elections, including primary elections.' Earlier this year, Musk poured big money into a Wisconsin judicial election, but lost to the Democratic candidate. And he's sent small-dollar donations to Republicans who wanted to go after judges who ruled against the Trump administration. The threat of his money, even if it is uneven and has an inconsistent success record, looms large for both political parties. But, by virtue of his unelected role, Musk couldn't do as much as he wanted to stop Trump's signature spending bill – or so it seems so far. Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' didn't cut enough spending or favor Musk enough or otherwise meet his litmus test for a budget. And when the administration stopped working for him, he turned on it, blazing out the door in a chaotic fashion. It's a fitting coda to the uneasy alliance between Trump and Musk that started with a warm embrace and front-row status for the ultra-wealthy when Trump took office. The fact that Musk holds such sway over the budget process is in itself corruption. Trump has said Musk knew what was in the bill, the undertone being that the administration sought his approval before the public explosion. Musk embraced a brawling style of political spending that is rare among the uber-wealthy, who tend to let their money speak louder than their public words. One expert in philanthropy previously told the Guardian Musk stood out because of his 'complete eschewal of discretion as a mode of political engagement'. Musk is now rallying his followers on X to reach out to their members of Congress and kill the bill, a quest that could be successful, depending on how Republican lawmakers shake out when they're forced to decide between their ideologue president and a megadonor known for his vindictiveness. In rightwing media, the feud has created a chasm. On Breitbart, one commentator noted how Trump was 'sticking his finger in the eye of his biggest donor and that never happens'. In the American Spectator, one writer opined that Musk did not elect Trump: 'the American people did.' But in the pages of the Washington Examiner, Musk's stance on the bill was praised because Trump's budget plan 'deserves to die'. 'I don't mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago,' Trump wrote to cap off a series of posts and public comments about Musk. Musk has 'lost his mind', the president said in a TV interview Friday. So far, Republican officials are lining up behind Trump. 'President Trump has done more than any person in my lifetime to earn the trust of the movement he leads,' JD Vance said. If Musk ultimately loses, he could take his money and run elsewhere. He floated the idea of creating a third political party, a prospect that's been tried many times before but without the wealth infusion and bully pulpit he'd offer to the cause. Democrats, themselves quite reliant on rich donors, will lobby for him to switch sides. The Democratic representative Ro Khanna suggested the party should 'be in a dialogue' with Musk. Although Khanna, who represents Silicon Valley and has called for the left to embrace economic populism, saw intense backlash against his comments from his party, he doubled down. 'If Biden had a big supporter criticize him, Trump would have hugged him the next day,' he wrote on X. 'When we refused to meet with @RobertKennedyJr, Trump embraced him & won. We can be the party of sanctimonious lectures, or the party of FDR that knows how to win & build a progressive majority.'
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fury as Republicans go ‘nuclear' in fight over California car emissions
California has long been one of the nation's preeminent eco-warriors, enacting landmark environmental standards for cars and trucks that go much further than those mandated by the federal government. Vehicles across the country are cleaner, more efficient and electric in greater numbers because of it. But that could all change if Donald Trump and his Republican allies manage to revoke the state's ability to set its own, stricter emissions standards amid a White House crusade to combat climate-friendly policies. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets and updates its own federal standards for all states on smog and emissions from cars and trucks, which the Biden administration made even stricter last year, saying they will save American drivers thousands in fuel costs and maintenance over the life of a vehicle. But for decades, California has been granted the ability to make those rules even stricter to help address some of the worst smog and air quality issues in the nation, which are linked to a host of health effects that disproportionately affect people of color. On Wednesday, the Senate voted to reverse the waivers, in move that prompted fury from Democrats who call it a 'nuclear' option, calling it an unprecedented, and illegal, use of the statute. The Government Accountability Office and the Senate parliamentarian have agreed, saying EPA waivers are not subject to the review law. The House approved similar resolutions earlier this month. The resolutions now go to the White House, where Trump is expected to sign them. 'This move will harm public health and deteriorate air quality for millions of children and people across the country,' said senators Alex Padilla, Sheldon Whitehouse and the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, in a statement. 'This Senate vote is illegal. Republicans went around their own parliamentarian to defy decades of precedent. We won't stand by as Trump Republicans make America smoggy again,' California's governor, Gavin Newsom, said in a statement on Thursday. 'We're going to fight this unconstitutional attack on California in court.' Kathy Harris, the director of clean vehicles at the Natural Resources Defense Council, emphasized California's ability to mandate strict emissions standards for cars, trucks and buses had existed for nearly 60 years, noting the state had been granted more than 75 waivers under Republican and Democratic presidents. Among the waivers include rules to increase the share of electric vehicles each year among all new car and truck sales, as well as mandates that auto companies introduce progressively cleaner vehicles. She described the waivers as a 'quadruple win', benefiting public health, air quality, drivers' pockets and the economy as a whole. 'These waivers are not new or novel,' Harris said in an interview. 'California has historically been innovators in systems to help produce cleaner air and stymying California's ability is a direct attack on our ability to limit pollution and health harming pollutants in the air.' She added revoking the waivers would immediately lead to an increase in pollution on the nation's roadways. More than a dozen states follow California's lead on emissions standards, according to the California air resources board. The standards now cover nearly 40% of new light-duty vehicle registrations and more than a quarter of heavy-duty vehicles like trucks across the entire US. Automakers have largely followed California's emissions standards as well so they can continue to sell cars there, as the state equates to the fourth-largest economy on the planet. Newsom upped the ante in the nation's environmental future in 2020, declaring his state would ban the sale of all new gas-powered vehicles by 2035. Eleven states have also joined California's plan to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by the 2035 deadline, a reality that has spooked major car companies. Joe Biden's administration approved the plan at the end of his term. Trump, however – a vehement opponent to many of the nation's climate efforts – has vowed to see them reversed. 'California has imposed the most ridiculous car regulations anywhere in the world, with mandates to move to all electric cars,' Trump said during his campaign last year. 'I will terminate that.' Newsom on Wednesday cast the battle as a nail in the coffin for the American car industry and decades of public health advancements. 'The United States Senate has a choice: cede American car-industry dominance to China and clog the lungs of our children, or follow decades of precedent and uphold the clean-air policies that Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon fought so hard for,' he challenged Republicans in a statement. 'Will you side with China or America?' The Senate's decision may have sweeping effects far beyond the state's borders. Harris said she recently pulled up pictures of what air quality looked like in cities around the country in the 1960s before the Clean Air Act, the seminal environmental law that regulates the nation's air quality, was in effect. She described normal levels of smog in California as blanketing the state similar to the apocalyptic clouds of wildfire smoke that have descended during recent fire seasons. The American Lung Association also found last month that Los Angeles remained the country's smoggiest city for the 25th time in 26 years of tracking, despite decades of improvements in air quality. 'I think we have forgotten about what our air used to look like,' Harris said. 'We take it for granted because it's a policy that's been around for so long we don't really recognize those direct benefits. 'There is still a long way to go, we have not succeeded in fully cleaning up our air yet,' she added. 'These types of policies help ensure we are moving in a positive direction.'
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senator Cory Booker says he will not accept any donations from Elon Musk
A leading elected Democrat rejected the idea of taking campaign donations from tech billionaire Elon Musk, whose spectacular fallout with former ally Donald Trump has roiled American politics. Trump on Saturday said Musk will face 'serious consequences' if he moves to support Democratic political candidates in any upcoming elections, following a public rift between the two men over Musk's staunch opposition to the cost of US president's planned piece of landmark domestic legislation. But Cory Booker, a senator for New Jersey, scotched any idea he would take any Musk cash. 'I would not accept money from Elon Musk for my campaign,' Booker told NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday. Related: Trump warns Musk of 'very serious consequences' if he backs Democrats But Booker added, referring to the Republicans budget bill that Musk has criticized, 'I would be supportive of anybody, including Elon Musk, putting resources forward right now to let more Americans know, sound the alarm, treat this like a Paul Revere moment.' Booker added: 'More Americans have to understand that if this bill passes, average Americans are going to see their costs skyrocket as this president again pushes legislation that is indicative of his chaos, corruption and cruelty towards Americans.' The senator's comments come as Democrats wrestle with the how to turn the dramatic fallout between Musk and Trump into opportunity. Musk turned his back on the party in 2022 and contributed $270m to Trump's re-election campaign in 2024, providing crucial help in the Republican's eventual victory. As the Trump-Musk feud intensified on Thursday, Musk posted on X: 'In November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people.,' clearly referring to any politician who supported Trump's budget bill. Ro Khanna, a Democratic congressman, reportedly talked with one of Musk's 'senior confidants' on last week about whether Musk might now want to help the Democrats in the midterm elections next year. 'Having Elon speak out against the irrational tariff policy, against the deficit exploding Trump bill, and the anti-science and anti-immigrant agenda can help check Trump's unconstitutional administration,' Khanna told Semafor. 'I look forward to Elon turning his fire against Maga Republicans instead of Democrats in 2026,' Khanna, who has argued that his party was unwise to alienate Musk, told the outlet. However, leftwing politicians, including Vermont senator Bernie Sanders and New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have publicly pictured Musk as what voters should be against: powerful wealthy billionaires seeking influence through politics. Sanders told CNN's State of the Union Sunday that Musk had 'evolved' into an extremist since he voted for Obama in 2008. 'Over the years he has developed into a rightwing extremist. The issue and drama over what happened last week is that we are living, increasingly, in an oligarchic society. Musk said: 'Hey listen, I spent $270m dollars to get you elected. I bought you the presidency …' 'This is a fight between oligarchs. It's a fight about power among the few, and it's really an embarrassment for those of us who believe in democracy and the rule of law,' Sanders added. Musk said last month that he planned to spend 'a lot less' on political campaigns as he scaled back and ultimately exited his time in government, where Trump had tasked him with massively slashing federal spending and jobs. Related: Trump-Musk feud shows what happens when unregulated money floods politics 'In terms of political spending I'm going to do a lot less in the future,' Musk told a Bloomberg forum in Doha. Asked why, he responded: 'I think I've done enough.' But Musk's opposition to Trump's 'One Big Beautiful' bill budget proposal, calling it an 'disgusting abomination', by definition puts him in relative proximity to Democratic positions on that issue. Booker was asked if agreed with Musk about the planned legislation that Trump has made a centerpiece of his administration. 'I agree that it's going to saddle this country with trillions of dollars of debt, endanger our entire economy … This is a morally wrong bill. And it's definitely, definitely an economically wrong bill as well.' 'This is not about right or left, it's about right or wrong,' he added. 'And I welcome Elon Musk, not to my campaign. I welcome him right now, not to sit back and just fire off tweets, to get involved right now in a more substantive way and putting pressure on congresspeople and senators to not do this.'
