PayPal freezes support account for Bradley Manning

[LiberalArkie]

<http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/02/24/205208/PayPal-Freezes-Support-Account-For-Bradley-Manning>

"The online payment provider PayPal has frozen the account of Courage to Resist, which in collaboration with the Bradley Manning Support Network is currently raising funds in support of US Army Pfc. Bradley Manning. 'We've been in discussions with PayPal for weeks, and by their own admission there's no legal obligation for them to close down our account,' noted Loraine Reitman of the Bradley Manning Support Network (Support Network). 'This was an internal policy decision by PayPal. ... They said they would not unrestrict our account unless we authorized PayPal to withdraw funds from our organization's checking account by default. While there may be no legal obligation to provide services, there is an ethical obligation. By shutting out legitimate nonprofit activity, PayPal shows itself to be morally bankrupt.'"

[ejpoeta]

1. it is not a crime to support someone via paypal. this is ridiculous!

[msanthrope]

4. No, it's not ridiculous--CTR refused to provide a bank account.

PayPal says it has no problem handling the account, as long as CTR abides by its rules for non-profits....

[NavyDem]

2. Maybe....

Courage To Resist should adhere to the terms of service....

"Courage To Resist and PayPal are still in talks, and according to Nayar the former is infringing against PayPal’s policy on 501 (3) (c) non-profits, which hold that a non-profit needs to have a bank account associated with their PayPal account. “For the vast majority of none profits this is not an issue,” says Najar." Link: http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/24/paypal-on-cutting-off-courage-to-resist-this-has-nothing-to-do-with-wikileaks/

[msanthrope]

5. YOu beat me to it--someone at CTR needs to explain why they

can't conform to the non-profit rules Paypal set up...

And maybe a few donors need to question where that money is going.

[NavyDem]

6. In the Tech Crunch Link

we both provided, there is an update on the PayPal blog, indicating that the account has already been un-frozen.

[msanthrope]

3. They wouldn't agree to PayPal's Terms of Service. Why should they get special treatment?

"In a phone call earlier today, PayPal representative Anuj Nayar told me that this action is not WikiLeaks related and that PayPal has only temporarily restricted the fund, “This has nothing to do with WikiLeaks.”

Courage To Resist and PayPal are still in talks, and according to Nayar the former is infringing against PayPal’s policy on 501 (3) (c) non-profits, which hold that a non-profit needs to have a bank account associated with their PayPal account. “For the vast majority of none profits this is not an issue,” says Najar.

Nayar also takes up CTR’s claim that PayPal would not un-restrict the account unless CTR authorized PayPal to withdraw funds from the checking account by default, “We can’t do that without the authorization of an account holder, so a) We can’t do it b) We don’t do it c) Even if we did the bank would resist the charge.”

SNIP

“Today’s temporary limitation of the Courage to Resist organization’s PayPal account is due to PayPal regulations requiring non profits to associate a bank account to their PayPal account. It is nothing to do with Wikileaks. Back in December 2010, we permanently restricted the account used by WikiLeaks due to a violation of the PayPal Acceptable Use Policy, which states that our payment service cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity. We’ve notified the account holder of this action. This is not the case with Courage to Resist”

http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/24/paypal-on-cutting-off-courage-to-resist-this-has-nothing-to-do-with-wikileaks/#


Has anybody wondered WHY this supposed non-profit is having problems that other non-profits don't seem to have following the financial rules of PayPal???? Seems to me like CTR ought to be able to explain why they don't have a bank account...