How are these people justifying these changes to their constituents? It's pretty hard to justify mucking with the free markets except to protected vested interests. Most of the time, these vested interests have very little to do with the voters.
No justification is required because it's pretty much baked into the mentality of the Midwest. The auto industry is what drives the Michigan economy (at least its most populous areas). Therefore most constituents not only don't mind, but likely fervently support such laws. The same could be said for the United Auto Workers. Pretty much the opposite of the free market, yet most people in Michigan support it because either they or somebody they know relies on the benefits created by the union.
Further, few people in Michigan can afford a new Ford, let alone a $60,000 electric car. If Tesla wants to lobby for free market economics, Michigan is probably the very last state they should be trying to convince.
Your generalizations about Michigan are misinformed.
There are many people in Michigan that think that companies that sell things should be able to sell them to people that want to buy them. There are also many people that can afford a Tesla.
I still think they would be more convincing attempting to get Tesla to sell to dealerships (lol) or to attempt to get Tesla to move some of the manufacturing to Detroit. I can't see this being positive for the taxpayers of Michigan for more than a few years.
They "justify" it by claiming that direct sales would threaten the jobs of the dealer industry, not that it actually justifies anything. By that reasoning, we should not have allowed manufacturing to become mechanized, because "think of the factory workers!".
I think you underestimate the brazenness with which politicians can approach these issues. George W. Bush practically boasted that he had deliberately abandoned free market principles. You might be overestimating how much love people have for the free market as they understand it.
