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.

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.

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?