Plenty of companies advertise how their product can help the world in some way. Firms sometimes brag about using recyclable materials or the charities they donate to. Even if I think the company is doing it for publicity reasons, the donations still help a good cause, so I approve. Well, now Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) has designed a creative way of drawing in customers and sending out donations.

The program, called i'm (think instant messaging), donates a portion of the ad revenue that Microsoft receives each time you use Windows Live Messenger or Windows Live Hotmail. So just by using its services the user can give to a worthy cause. Since March of last year, this service has raised over $1.5 million in ad revenue for charity.

Starting June 23, the initiative is hosting the i'mtalkathon (read the disclaimer at the bottom). It's "30 days of e-mailing and IMing for the common cause." The intention is to get people who stumble upon the 'blog' to go and sign up for one of the offered services. Surely, this will help raise money for charities as well as Microsoft.

While he should be commended for opening up his tax records, Democratic Presidential front-runner Barack Obama and wife Michelle should be embarrassed at the negligible amount of money donated to charity. According to a report in Bloomberg.com, " Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to charities, or less than 1 percent, according to tax returns for those years released today by his campaign."

To be fair to them they did up their giving a bit in '05-'06 after they cashed in on his book. Interesting to note that in that 2-year span they brought in $2.6 million. $2.6 million later and Michelle is still not proud to be an American. Humm???

For someone who believes that we need to change society and make things better, he sure sets a lousy example. After all, I thought he is all about giving back to the community. Well the community can't do very much with a couple of bucks.

Once again we find the hypocrisy of politicians. They know best how to make society better, and they have no problem taxing us to pay for it. But when it comes time for the politician to open up his own wallet, suddenly some excuse arises and they are unable to do so. Isn't that called a double standard?

Aaron Katsman is the lead Portfolio Manager and Managing Director of America Israel Investment Associates, LLC. and Senior Editor of IsraelNewsletter.com. DISCLOSURE: Writer's fund has no position in any stock mentioned, as of 3/25/08.

There's an old adage that you've got to give sometimes in order to receive. Nowhere is that more true than in modern-day politics where the level of candidate scrutinization had reached epic heights. While no politico myself, I do recognize a savvy move when I see one, and I think I just spotted one.

Obama just released his 2000-2006 tax returns into the public domain and is now urging Hillary Clinton to do the same. Why subject your filings to the public sphere? This armchair pundit believes that Obama knows something about the Clinton filings and is upping the ante to push them to the same level of disclosure.

But once we've got the filings, what do they tell us about Obama? Well, Bloomberg is taking the Obamas to task for not quite giving as charitably as they could. In an article out today, Bloomberg writes that the Obamas gave less than 1% of their 2000-2004 income to charity.

Forbes columnists M. Todd Henderson and Anup Malani make a compelling case for corporate philanthropy:

There is a tax efficiency to corporate giving. Both Pfizer and its shareholders lower their taxable income when the company donates Diflucan to Africa. If Pfizer instead maximized its profits, paid corporate income tax and then let shareholders make charitable donations to treat AIDS-related diseases out of their dividend checks, the money available for charity would be reduced, given the current 35% corporate income tax.

That's certainly true. The tax code is, I would argue, one of the few compelling arguments for charitable giving on the part of public companies. Without the tax benefits, I would argue that companies should stick to their income-earning knitting, delivering strong returns to shareholders who can then use the money to support the causes important to them.

Until 2003, Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.A) had an innovative giving program that I think was a model of good corporate governance: the company designated a chunk of earnings for philanthropy each year, and then allowed each shareholder to designate a charity for their prorated share.

I'm just concerned about companies donating money to causes that are objectionable to some of their shareholders. For instance, Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) is a leading supporter of the Salvation Army, which has a long track record of discriminatory treatment of the gay community.

The government should amend the tax code to make it more efficient for companies to give their shareholders a say in corporate philanthropy.

Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) has announced details of its philanthropic plan (Google.org) to combat climate change, poverty, and what the company called "emerging threats." In a press release, Google said that "Today's announcement includes more than $25 million in new grants and investments to initial partners. The resources come from a commitment by Google's founders to devote approximately 1 percent of the company's equity plus 1 percent of annual profits to philanthropy, as well as employee time."

While Google's founders should certainly be commended for their commitment to issues of social justice and making the world a better place, the donations do raise interesting questions about the purpose and goals of public companies.

Remember, Google's top executives are, in effect, using the capital of the company's shareholders to execute their own philanthropic aims. The "1% of equity and 1% of profits" doctrine certainly runs counter to Milton Friedman's assertion that the social responsibility of a corporation is to increase its profits.

As an investor, I'd rather see companies focus on generating profits, and then letting the shareholders -- the rightful owners of the company's income and equity -- decide what to do with it.

But as long as Google's stock is a strong performer, no one's likely to complain. Plus, you'll make very few friends arguing that corporate philanthropy at public companies is inappropriate.

Since launching Salesforce.com (NYSE: CRM) in the late 1990s, Marc Benioff has built a multi-billion dollar operation, which is still growing at a break-neck pace. Interestingly enough, Benioff thinks that a big key to success has been his company's philanthropic efforts – that has helped with employee morale, community involvement and even customer loyalty.

To this end, Benioff used the 1-1-1 model. When Salesforce.com was founded, 1% of the stock went into a foundation. After that, 1% of the profits were put into the foundation and employees have spent 1% of their time on philanthropic activities.

Last year, Benioff wrote a book on the topic, called The Business of Changing the World. He interviews a variety of companies, such as Cisco (NASDAQ: CSCO), UPS (NYSE: UPS), Dell (NASDAQ: DELL), Intel (NASDAQ: INTC) and Timberland.

So what can your business do?

Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT), the world's largest retailer, will be donating 3 million meals (value: $1 million) to America's Second Harvest (ASH). ASH is the largest hunger-relief organization in the U.S., and with such a large donation, it's great to hear Wal-Mart contributing to those less fortunate as a response to the nationwide shortage in food banks this month.

Wal-Mart will deliver 50 food-filled trucks to each state in the U.S. with an equal share of the 3 million donated meals, which will comprise the main portion of the retailer's donation. As a kudos to Wal-Mart, it was listed as being the first corporation to respond to ASH's call to action based on a national food shortage in food banks all over the U.S. To ensure those in need at least have a holiday meal to enjoy, Wal-Mart's donation will supply 25% of the 12 million meals the ASH says are needed. Meals will include grocery items like macaroni and cheese, oatmeal, peanut butter and jelly, spaghetti pasta and sauce, corn, beans and potatoes.

Will Wal-Mart win some positive PR by getting all these food donations in place within every U.S. state by next Tuesday -- Christmas Day? Most likely, yes. In a year that saw the giant retailer fend off sharp arrows from just about every critic it has, all that needs to be put aside to recognize the latitude of this kind of corporate giving. To other retailers that have not yet responded: Wal-Mart has set the bar for you. Let's see other food retailers measure up during the remainder of this week.

Let's see a show of hands, who has their 501(c)(3) corporations all picked out for tax time?

It's not that I advocate using the act of charity to manipulate your tax burden, but you must admit that when it comes to paying taxes, if a donation of a couple hundred dollars will drop you into a lower tax bracket at filing time, a check to Habitat for Humanity suddenly becomes much more palatable.

The designation of 501(c)(3) is the code which identifies IRS registered, non-profit organizations. That's the first thing you want to look for when considering a charitable donation. There are (and should be) a host of other questions that you need to ask when donating, but where are the answers?

While investigating the Kiplinger.com web site, I discovered an absolutely excellent source of charitable organization analysis tucked in with Kiplinger's 25 Best Web Sites review. Charity Navigator.org is a website dedicated to the nuts-and-bolts financial disclosure of non-profit corporations large and small. Charity Navigator reveals how charities are handling the donations they receive and gives a broad view about how a charity is performing on the books. With a free and easy registration to the site, you can also have access to deeper analysis on specific organizations, such as a retrospective analysis of an organization's historical performance.

The experts say that when considering non-profit organizations to make donations to, you should always be careful and do your homework. Try to make sure that the organizations you choose to support serve your principles and ideals. You might find value by spending a little time at Charity Navigator to compare how charities stack up in their performance and while you're there, be sure to read their Top 10 Practices of Savvy Donors.

Americans gave almost $300 billion to charity in 2006, setting a new all-time record for generosity. The showing was particularly impressive given that 2005's results benefited from a surge in donations related to Hurricane Katrina and the tsunami in Asia. 2006's results were effected by Warren Buffett's record setting pledge to the Gates Foundation.

While this is obviously something that our country should be proud of, it may also be a good sign for the economy. That Americans are feeling secure enough to donate shows that the economy might be in better shape than other studies suggest. If Americans are struggling so much, why would they donate a record amount to charity? According to the Associated Press:

Giving historically tracks the health of the overall economy, with the rise amounting to about one-third the rise in the stock market, according to Giving USA. Last year was right on target, with a 3.2 percent rise as stocks rose more than 10 percent on an inflation-adjusted basis.

Corporate donations plunged 10.5%, but that was largely a result of the generosity American companies showed in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.

Let's set a new record in 2007!

Intel (NASDAQ: INTC) and motherboard company Asustek Computer will build a notebook PC that will cost as little as $200. The unit is targeted at children in developing countries.

The new PC will compete with computers being offered by the One Laptop Per Child Foundation.

But, it is an open question about how community-minded Intel is being. Depending on the price point of the chip, the company could still be making money on the machines. It is interesting that Intel did not mention this as part of its announcement.

The One Laptop Per Child machine uses a chip from Intel rival AMD (NYSE: AMD).

Skeptics may view Intel's move as a way to make money in the ultra-low-end chip market which has been over-shadowed by more expensive, faster processors used in developed countries.

A do-good project that makes money? Intel is not saying.

Douglas A. McIntyre is a partner at 24/7 Wall St.

While Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE: WMT) is a high-profile target of critics of corporate greed, the Walton family has, without great media attention, done very little for charity. But with the death Helen Walton, the widow of founder Sam Walton, that could change. With her stake in the company making her a billionaire several times over, the Walton Family Foundation could become one of the three biggest charities in the country, if Ms. Walton's shares go to it.

It remains to be seen what will happen, but Wal-Mart's PR executives have to be praying that the Waltons will finally become a major force in philanthropy. They'll be able to say "Look, the money that we're making paying low wages with poor benefits ends up going to charity anyway."

But until that happens, the stinginess of the Waltons is bad PR for the Wal-Mart company, although it's something they obviously have no control over. But if the Walton Family Foundation grows rapidly from Helen Walton's estate, I would expect them to make some public relations hay out of it.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE:WMT) bid to strengthen its public image continues, as the company announced a 10% increase in its charitable giving in 2006, donating a total 272.9 million dollars to various causes. The 10% increase represents a slow in growth, as the company increased its giving 19% in 2005 in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Needless to say, the move did nothing to assuage the concerns of the company's critics. "Charity is always good, but what is not good is Wal-Mart forcing poorly paid and uninsured workers to depend on charity," WakeUpWalMart.com spokesman Chris Kofinis said.

I'm critical of the charitable contributions, but for a different reason. Leaving decisions about where to donate shareholder money up to management is wrong. I would like to see Wal-Mart adopt the charitable giving model once employed by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway, (NYSE:BRK.A)which allocated a sum of money each year for charity, and allows each shareholder to distribute it as they wish. As Buffett has said, "[These] representatives of the owners direct funds to their favourite charities, and never consult the owners as to their charitable preference. (I wonder how they would feel if the process were reversed and shareholders could invade the directors' pockets for charities favoured by the shareholders."

To read more about how Berkshire's shareholder-designated contributions program, and why it was terminated, visit BuffettSecrets.com.

The Motley Fool ran an excellent piece the other day about the National Council for Economic Education, one of the featured "Foolanthropy" charities for 2006. According to the Council's website, their mission is to "help students develop the real-life skills they need to succeed: to be able to think and choose responsibly as consumers, savers, investors, citizens, members of the workforce, and effective participants in a global economy."

In addition to its programs to teach entrepreneurship and financial skills to young people, the organization also conducts research on the state of America's financial literacy. And the results are, well, pathetic. In a quiz designed to test adults on economic concepts, adults got an average grade of 70% -- C, and students' average score was 53% -- F. "Six in 10 high school students and more than one-quarter of adults get a failing grade on the Economics Quiz."

Oprah, Oprah, Oprah. We've always relied on you as the doyenne of spendy gifts, the queen of conspicious consumption. It was you, every year, who announced your "favorites" with much fanfare and fabulous giveaways to your adoring audience (and who wouldn't adore you, with your sponsorship-fueled generosity?).

But this year, you've betrayed the capitalist in us all. You've really gone and done it this time. You've told us to give to charities, not buy things. Huh?

Oh, sure, I'm all for philathropy. But I don't expect this of Oprah. Consumers everywhere are relying on her for her wisdom in selecting the must-have gifts for the holiday. Small, artsy and luxe companies rely on her (or fear her, as the case may be) to send stacks and gigabytes of orders their way, with a "must-deliver" date of December 24th.

Not this year. This year, you're supposed to use your spare cash (and the $1000 debit card, if you were in her audience during the October taping of Oprah's "Pay it Forward" show) to do good works.

I'm all for charity, but I don't see it as a replacement for giving things. I may sometimes interpret the "things" in a different way than Oprah ever did, choosing to give hand-made gifts, books, photographs, scores from the thrift stores, and other slightly less conspicuous examples of consumption. But holiday shopping is inviolate ... I'll wait 'til December 30th or so and then get into the selflessly charitable spirit. Will you follow Oprah's lead, or stick with the pretty-and-tangible things this holiday season?

I've probably been unjustly hard on Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE:WMT) in the past. It's not that I don't like them, it's more a case of not liking some of the moves they've made as a corporation. The one thing that really set me off was when on September 14, 2006, Wal-mart announced the phasing out of their layaway program. Without knowing the true reasons why they elected to do that, I thought that made things tougher for their potential customers who have limited buying power. I still feel that way somewhat, but I admit I failed to get Wal-mart's side of the story. The reasons Wal-Mart cited were declining use and increasing expense. They did state that they were examining other financing options for their customer's large ticket purchases. It seems like sound logic to me. Perhaps I overreacted.

In any case, I thought that now would be a good time to get Wal-mart's side of the story. I've been looking at news articles and press releases on their web site and I must say that I am impressed. I never realized just how much Wal-mart actually does for the communities they serve. When you step back from the obvious "hype" issues and take a big picture view, Wal-mart actually takes on quite a nice warm glow. I found a multitude of admirable projects that Wal-mart leads or is involved in. I'd like to share some of those with you.

The $4.00 prescription drug program: Yes, it's a marketing strategy but let's be realistic. This move by Wal-mart will save American consumers millions of dollars in prescription drug costs. This is not a price rollback; this is a cost GIVE BACK. This program will put money directly back into the hands of hard working Americans.

Wal-Mart's Acres for America: Acres for America is a one-of-a-kind partnership between Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to conserve critical wildlife habitats for future generations. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. has committed $35 million over 10 years to permanently conserve at least one acre of priority wildlife habitat for every developed acre of Wal-Mart Store's retail campuses.