Oh, Eric, you *are* a good neighbor, and a thoughtful one, too. You get free cake for life. :)

Many thanks for puzzling things out in a way that I guess I was too incensed to do on Friday. I'm still not entirely ready to let the company off the hook, even as I do recognize that a public company's first duty is to its shareholders. They've found money for new levels of management within the company, for lobbyists, even for a cocktail party for the delegates at the Republican Convention last year, so I know that when the motivation is right, the money can be found. That said, I agree with you that a strong case, presented well, is the best tack to take, and I will think carefully about how to do it.

Jen, my intent was not to convince you to let your employer off the hook. I was actually hoping to encourage you to build a logical case whereby the "stakeholders" of the company could exercise some influence over its policies. Having been a corporate drone for many years, I understand very well that in order to do that, one must have a good grasp of all the issues, even (especially?) those that seem to work against what you want to achieve. By being cognizant of those things, you can anticipate the opposing arguments and, possibly, nip them in the bud.

Good luck!

The insidious thing about corporate giving is that it appears to be "free money." Who's pocket is it coming from? What if the company reduced its philanthropy budget to zero? Would the employees get bigger paycheck? The stockholders a bigger dividend? Perhaps the firm would develop a new product or market? A business should make money for its stockholders and let them decide what charities to support. Companies may argue that you can't put a dollar value on the good feelings such giving generates. My experience is that when people say you can't measure something they really mean that they don't want to measure it because they wouldn't like the result.

John, the concept of "free money" was what I was trying to address by pointing out that a corporation really doesn't own anything, in and of itself. Anything it spends reduces what it potentially could return to its stockholders or employees. But a company that won't invest generally can't grow, and corporate philanthropy is now viewed by many (if not most) people as an investment in the community (or market) in which the company does business.

Whether the benefits can be measured or not is, ultimately, beside the point. If the stockholders are perceived to value corporate philanthropy, then the corporation has an obligation to act in accordance with those values. What becomes difficult to measure, then, is the degree to which stockholder values drive philanthropic decisions.

it's significant even if it's also unmeasurable.

Oh, if it's a big enough business to have stockholders, it will be measured. And then it will be deducted, which is the third reason corporations give.

Bryan, I was talking about the benefits not being measurable, not the contributions themselves. I've never seen a reliable method for quantifyig the results of corporate philanthropy.

I also have never seen a company spend money just to get a tax deduction. The fact that a donation is deductible definitely makes it easier to justify, but that in and of itself isn't sufficient reason to spend the money.

John: I disagree a little on your concept of "free money". Money spent on raw materials, employee salaries and benefits, those are clearly related to enhancing shareholder value. I would ask you to consider three points.

First, I question the true value of any corporate philanthropy as an "investment". I was watching the NASCAR race last night (yeah I guess I am a redneck) and they ran ads about giving to hurricane relief. It didn't make me want to watch more NASCAR, it just made me think, "well, they are jumping on the bandwagon too." Now, perhaps I'm cynical, but I'd bet a lot of people feel that way as well.

Secondly, as a stockholder in some corporations, I say, give me the money and let me give it to the charity of my choice, not yours. Now, I'm not saying that I am totally against any and all corporate giving, though I do think it should be signigicantly scaled back. But I do think the officers and directors have a fiduciary duty to be able to show that such giving benefits the company in a tangible way.

Lastly, you might want to look into where much of this corporate charity goes. Often corporate charity is directed to the pet projects of the top executives, not to where its needed the most. There have been news reports of executives in New York giving company money as gifts to schools that they were trying to get their kids into. There have also been cases of executives gifting corporate funds to charities their wives were on the boards of as well.

I frequently attend performances at Bass Hall in Fort Worth. Before each performance, they announce that the major sponsor is American Airlines, which has its headquarters here. I'm sure they are counted as a good corp. citizen of FW. However, I have never, ever, chosen to fly American because they give money to the arts.

I also have never seen a company spend money just to get a tax deduction. The fact that a donation is deductible definitely makes it easier to justify, but that in and of itself isn't sufficient reason to spend the money.

I don't think they spend money to get tax deductions, necessarily. Although there are times when corporations will give away materials in lieu of a cash donation, and expect a donation for those. It's not the sufficient reason for those donations, but I can't say it doesn't play into their considerations heavily. For instance, let's say a bank closes a branch office that is now redundant because of a merger. The bank could take the contents of that building and find an auction house to sell the office furniture, paintings, etc.

OR, the bank could donate those items to charities who need office equipment. There is a combination of factors at work, but I think someone at the bank did some calculating and figured that the deduction on the donation would be worth more to them financially than the low price they would get on the auction.