Grant Stinchfield criticized what he described as government intervention in a dispute between financial institutions and major technology companies, arguing that private businesses should negotiate the cost of accessing banking data without federal involvement.

Stinchfield centered his remarks on Section 1033, saying the issue has received little public attention despite its potential impact on consumers.

“Big tech is at it again. Multi-billion-dollar companies looking for another free ride while everyone else picks up the tab. This fight is over something called Section 1033. Most people have never heard of it, but you need to know what it is.”

He said companies including PayPal, Venmo, cryptocurrency platforms, and budgeting applications want access to customers' banking information with consumer permission.

Trump's Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

“Here's the deal: companies like PayPal, Venmo, crypto platforms, and budgeting apps want access to your banking data. That's fine if you authorize it. Well, then they should get it.”

According to Stinchfield, his objection is not to authorized data sharing but to who pays for the systems that make that access possible.

“The problem is this: they don't want to pay for the access to the data, and this is where you will all get hosed. Banks have to build and maintain the secure systems that make all of this work. They pay for cybersecurity. They pay for the infrastructure. They pay every time these tech companies constantly ping their systems for data, and it isn't cheap.”

Stinchfield argued that the federal government should not require banks to provide that access without compensation.

FREE Gun Law Map: Laws Don't Pause During Social Unrest

“Now the government, our government, is inserting itself into a battle that should be between the banks and big tech. Instead, anti-free market government overlords want to tell the banks they must provide that data for free. Now that's bogus because big tech already makes billions of dollars each year. These companies can afford to pay their share.”

He also argued that any additional costs imposed on banks would ultimately be passed on to consumers through banking fees and reduced services.

“And consider this: if banks are forced to absorb these costs, who do you think is really going to foot the bill? You will. Those costs won't disappear. They'll show up as higher fees, fewer free services, and more costs passed directly to consumers. And you can't blame the banks for doing that. They're in the business to make money, after all.”

Stinchfield also linked the issue to his criticism of major technology companies over past content moderation decisions affecting conservatives.

“So let me make one more point about the big tech freeloaders. These are the same companies that spent years censoring conservative voices, suspending accounts, debanking them because they don't agree with your right to free speech. Now we're supposed to force the traditional banking system to subsidize these same companies. Give me a break.”

He concluded by arguing that disputes over banking data access should be resolved through negotiations between private companies rather than government mandates.

“This isn't about protecting consumers. It's about Washington forcing one private company to subsidize another private company, if big tech profits from your banking data, they ought to help pay for the system that gives them access to it. In the end, let the free market settle it instead of government picking winners and losers. Big tech's big government protection needs to end. No more free rides. Not for big tech. Not for anyone.”

WATCH:

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Objectivist. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.