How have crowdfunding platforms and payment processors changed policies toward protest-related fundraising since 2020?
Executive summary
Since 2020, mainstream crowdfunding platforms and payment processors have increasingly enforced content and merchant rules that restrict financing for protest-related and extremist activities, while alternative platforms and crypto have emerged as work-arounds; researchers and watchdogs document millions raised by extremist campaigns and highlight uneven platform responses [1][2]. Payment firms have at times cut off services to crowdfunding sites linked to the January 6 Capitol events and other controversial fundraisers, prompting debate over “financial censorship” and migration to niche or crypto processors [3][4][5].
1. Platforms moved from hands-off to active gatekeeping
Mainstream crowdfunding companies—already prohibiting hate or violent content in earlier years—took more visible steps after high-profile violent events to restrict who can raise money and for what causes; academic analysis shows crowdfunding governance now centrally concerns which causes may be financed, not merely speech moderation [6][2]. Studies of political crowdfunding since 2020 document duelling campaigns and increased use of sites like GoFundMe for protest-related mobilization, underscoring why platforms worried about reputational and legal exposure [7][8].
2. Payment processors increasingly intervened in who gets paid
Payment firms have at moments severed or refused services tied to protest fundraising. For example, PayPal stopped providing payment tools to GiveSendGo after that site was linked to Capitol riot fundraisers, an action reported in early 2021 and criticized by experts as late and uneven [3]. Civil‑liberties advocates documented other cases where processors cut ties with fringe platforms tied to violent actors, framing the moves as enforcement of merchant rules [4][3].
3. Watchdogs quantify the scale and spotlight gaps
Investigations found extremist-linked campaigns raised millions on a variety of crowdfunding sites between 2016 and 2022, and the Anti‑Defamation League’s analysis highlighted that substantial sums were hosted on alternative platforms such as GiveSendGo, even as mainstream platforms captured some extremist fundraising [1]. Academic researchers argue that crowdfunding acts as a conduit for ideological struggle and demands firmer governance or regulation to prevent platforms becoming “complicit” in harm [2].
4. Alternative platforms, “free-speech” hosts and crypto filled the vacuum
When mainstream platforms or payment processors clamp down, organizers often migrate to less regulated crowdfunding sites or to cryptocurrency solutions. Reporting and commentary link the 2022 Freedom Convoy and other movements to crypto donations used as a censorship‑resistant alternative when traditional payment rails were constrained [5]. Time and policy pieces document the emergence of platforms that advertise minimal content moderation or different risk appetites, which in turn concentrate controversial campaigns [1][2].
5. Industry and civil‑liberties pushback: contested definitions of censorship
Advocacy groups and industry commentators differ on whether processor actions constitute necessary risk management or improper “financial censorship.” The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression cited PayPal’s actions against January 6 fundraisers as examples fueling free‑speech concerns, while payment firms maintain merchant policies and brand‑risk standards that purport to allow them to refuse “brand‑damaging” activity [4]. Scholars urge clearer rules and “digital constitutionalism” to avoid ad hoc decisions by private firms [2].
6. Practical effects for protest organizers and donors
Organizers report both easier grassroots fundraising through Venmo, CashApp and mainstream crowdfunding during large protests (e.g., 2020 mobilizations) and sudden disruptions when processors or platforms withdraw services; news coverage from 2020 documented rapid use of peer‑to‑peer apps for protest support but also later frictions when campaigns cross platform rules [9][7]. Payment‑industry commentary now treats political or protest fundraising as higher‑risk merchant activity, warning of de‑risking, freezes, or higher fees that campaigners may face [10].
7. Policy and market responses remain fragmented
There is no single regulatory fix in the sources provided; instead, actions range from platform policy updates and payment‑processor decisions to calls for legislation and formal rules. Petition campaigns and industry coverage through 2025 show political pressure on processors and proposals to restrict processors’ discretion, but available sources do not mention a comprehensive legal solution that resolves the underlying tensions [11][5]. Academic observers argue for clearer, uniformly enforced rules to reduce arbitrary deplatforming [2].
8. What to watch next
Monitor three fault lines evidenced in reporting: [12] migration of contested campaigns to niche platforms and crypto [5][1]; [13] continued pressure campaigns and potential lawmaking to limit processors’ discretion [11]; and [14] research and regulatory debates about how platform governance should balance harm prevention against free‑expression and political participation [2]. Sources document consequences and debate, but available sources do not mention a settled consensus on which approach should govern protest‑related fundraising [2][4].