Constitutionally minded leaders like Rand Paul and Justin Amash stand for cash as a permanent option, free from forfeiture prior to prosecution for a reason. There are some things that a check, or even the slightly more anonymous money order, just can not do as well as cash. While banking and handling one’s money as one sees fit – be it in cash, checks, debit, credit cards, etc – should be up to each person, that freedom is in question today. Well, it turns out that just as there are some things that cash can do that checks can not, there are things that most electronic money handlers can do that PayPay can not accomplish.

PayPal is already known the world over for gouging those who use the platform to the point of mafia loan sharking when handling incoming payments. This they do by applying VERY high fees for service. Well, now they are set to be known as a very poor avenue to conduct charity donations through, too.

According to a Guardian article entitled, “Donations made using PayPal platform may never reach charities, lawsuit says,” if a charity is not registered with PayPal, they may not get the money donated through the platform. Somehow, the massive fees that PayPal vice grips from the pocketbooks of those who use the platform is not enough for them to send the money to those who need it the most among us. They did not even charge to have it done, which may have been a bit less moral, but better than not sending it all.

Donate with Money in the Hand Icon - Red Button on Black Computer Keyboard.

This is not to say that PayPal stole the money, that would be fake news worthy of CNN. Instead, the money is in sort of a limbo – a greenback purgatory if you will – until some way is found to get the money to those who can clearly NOT afford to wait. When that fails, they GIVE THE MONEY TO ANOTHER CHARITY.

A federal class action lawsuit from Chicago (which will surely make fees even higher once pawned off to their users) charges that the money may never go to those that need it at all. This is no small amount of money considering that PayPal has raised over $7 billion last year. The site claims to allow users “to give directly to over a million charities,” but only a very small number of those charities ever see one red cent. This is due to the fact that PayPal is collecting money for charities that it has no way to pay.

Even more frustrating is that after being held for six months, any money that can not go towards the charity to which it was intended goes to other charities that are. This means that if someone gave $X to “fight cancer,” if that “fight cancer” charity was not registered with PayPal, but “fight climate change” was, “fight climate change” gets the money. This also means that a very likely motive for PayPal to do this is to rope MORE charities into registering so that they can get more means of business for themselves (maybe, even more fees?), not to help anyone! They are simply baiting people into donating anything so that those who do register have to use the service.


Attorney Chris Dore, who represents  Terry Kass and the North Shore Health Center, has said, “We have no idea where the money is going. We are trying to just get the money where it’s supposed to go.” This is a very, very big deal and should rest as a lasting blemish upon PayPal because it could work to diminish what people give if charities are found to be corrupt. A lot of people give an extra dollar or two while in internet check out lines due to how easy PayPal had made the option. Also, let us remember that even during 9/11, once the money was needed and surpassed, many charities involved told the nation that the goal was hit, thus securing their trust with those donating.

PayPal issued a statement saying that they only recently became aware of the lawsuit and added, “PayPal and PayPal Giving Fund foster positive change and significant social impact by connecting donors and charities. We are fully prepared to defend ourselves in this matter.” This answer seems to blur the lines and is a clever attempt a classic “duck, dodge, and replace” in action. Duck the question by suggesting that you did not steal it when we know that you did, dodge the answer by addressing the duck, replace it with the action to proclaim innocence when it shows no money was stolen. However, it will show that the money went to anyone already using (i.e. paying) PayPal, not to anyone else, as was promised.


Terry Kass is a charitable donor from Illinois who used PayPay to give $3,250 to 13 “national and local charities in 2016,” according to the Guardian. PayPal, it says, had promised to add 1% if their platform was used, which makes the pendulum of morality swing even further from the money handling giant. Every charity that Kass wanted to donate to was found on PayPal’s platform along with companies promising to give “100% of the donations” to the charities. When one of the charities said that they never got her kind gift, Kass investigated and found that ten of her thirteen charities were not registered and therefore nullified.

As if things could not get any worse for PayPal, facts seem to show that not only did they not inform those that donated that their money may have went to “Save The Dodo Bird” or God only knows what else, but they did not inform the charities that were NOT getting the money that they needed to register. This begs the question, “why was the charity even listed?” which offers a possible answer of “to cater those that pay us and make them stay on our platform” as a reasonable reply.

This is the kind of thing that needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law because Lord knows that we expect politicians, rock stars, Hollywood crybabies, and the global warming scammers to be dishonest, but those that handle charity money are held upon a higher moral ground, even in the fallen civil state of our nation. As such, when a clear trampling and disrespect of such a duty is displayed from a company that has been given so much (often not by choice) from so many, to NOT press charges is as immoral as raising money for a charity and then not giving it to them.