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.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) will be fully supporting the Salvation Army this holiday season on the heels of last year's tremendously successful bell ringing campaign. If you've visited a Wal-Mart store this week, you've probably seen the bell ringers for the Salvation Army perched outside the entrance. Last year, over $30 million was raised outside nationwide Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores.

Wal-Mart does receive a fair amount of flack in the media related to employee pay and benefits, but always seems to offset it here and there with notes of its charitable giving. Although this effort has little to do with Wal-Mart's effort beyond allowing bell ringers outside its stores, it's still admirable in the face of a politically correct population which believes every citizen (and non-citizen) should be treated equally in every possible way.

Do you support the Salvation Army when holiday time comes around, or do you argue that fifteen other needy organizations should be allowed to ring bells for donation as well? Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott, love him or hate him, stated that "Our associates and customers, who are some of the most generous in the nation, have provided tremendous support to The Salvation Army over the years...we consider the organization to be one of our closest, most important partners, and all of us at Wal-Mart are looking forward to the sound of bells ringing at our stores and Clubs once again this season."

That's pretty straightforward and not surprising from a conservative-driven retail chain -- one that happens to the be largest in the country and world. But, my question to you as a consumer is this: do you support Wal-Mart's position here?

For the third year in a row, Salvation Army bell ringers won't be allowed in front of Target Corp.'s (NYSE:TGT) stores. The nation's second-largest retail discount chain said it prefers to make a one-time donation to the group -- $1 million this year -- instead of having Salvation Army volunteers stand in front of its stores waiting for donations.

This follows Target's stance of not allowing fund-raising in its stores in any way, even though the Salvation Army bell ringers are staples in front of many high-volume retail locations this time of year.

On one hand, Target is treating all fund-raising activities the same and is not waffling on its stance here. On the other hand, competitor Wal-Mart is allowing Salvation Arny bell ringers in front of its stores like always, and is even bringing "Christmas" as a theme for the holidays instead of using universal and generic themes like "Seasons Greetings" and "Happy Holidays".

A post from a week ago continues to ignite the powder keg that is the battle between proponents of the word "Christmas" and/or holiday to describe the season itself to those who don't want to be forced a holiday that they don't ascribe to.

What is your thought? Should Target allow "one exception" to the "no fund raisers" policy and allow Salvation Army bell ringers in front of stores this or future seasons? The money goes to the underprivileged and needy -- so why doesn't Target allow this kind of human fellowship and giving? Comments welcome.