Alaska accuses crowdfunding websites of violating law, using charities’ names without their consent The state of Alaska filed civil lawsuits Tuesday against six crowdfunding websites, accusing them of illegally soliciting donations for thousands of Alaska charities without consent. In complaints filed at Anchorage Superior Court, the consumer protection unit of the Alaska Department of Law said GoFundMe, PayPal, Charity Navigator, Pledgling Technologies, JustGiving and Network For Good each violated the Alaska Charitable Solicitations Act thousands of times. That act, in place since 1993, requires state registration for anyone who seeks donations on behalf of a charity. The suits ask a judge to order the sites shut down the pages devoted to Alaska nonprofits and immediately disburse any donations to those nonprofits. It also asks for “separate civil penalties … of not less than $1,000 and not more than $25,000 per violation.” According to the complaints, the six crowdfunding sites scraped IRS data to obtain the information of thousands of Alaska nonprofits, then set up donation pages for each of those nonprofits without their consent. That scraping was part of a nationwide campaign that encompassed almost a million and a half federally registered organizations. In some cases, the sites charged fees or encouraged “tips” to themselves during the donation process. In many cases, they poured donations into a third-party account and only released donations to charities who stepped forward to claim them, according to the complaints. Attorney General-designee Stephen Cox said the state became aware of the issue after California reporters and state officials began investigating why GoFundMe created donation pages for 1.4 million nonprofits without their consent or knowledge.#gofundme #alaska #paypal #charity_navigator #pledgling_technologies
Strait of Hormuz Energy Crisis Offers Another Reason to Repeal the Jones Act The ongoing disruption of global oil and gas supplies through the Strait of Hormuz has highlighted the urgent need to reconsider the Jones Act, a 1920 law that imposes strict regulations on maritime trade between U.S. ports. Critics argue that the law’s outdated provisions are hindering the ability of American energy producers to stabilize prices in key regional markets such as New England, the West Coast, and Alaska. With Iran laying mines in the strait to threaten shipping lanes, the Jones Act’s restrictions are seen as a barrier to addressing domestic energy needs and mitigating the impact of the crisis on consumers. The Jones Act mandates that all goods transported between U.S. ports must be carried on vessels built, owned, and operated by American companies. These ships must also be crewed by at least 75% U.S. citizens and comply with stringent U.S. regulations. Such requirements have led to significantly higher costs compared to international alternatives, as U.S. shipyards face higher labor and regulatory expenses. Additionally, the law discourages the adoption of modern technologies and operational efficiencies, further inflating transportation costs. The economic consequences of the Jones Act are particularly acute in the energy sector. For instance, there are currently no Jones Act-compliant liquefied natural gas (LNG) vessels capable of transporting natural gas from the Gulf to New England or Puerto Rico. This lack of infrastructure has made it prohibitively expensive to supply West Coast markets with oil from Alaska and has limited the ability of Gulf ports to serve domestic energy demand. Analysts, including Philip G. Hoxie and Vincent H.#strait_of_hormuz #jones_act #philip_g_hoxie #vincent_h_smith #alaska
