36

The report notes (Building on Strength, p. 19) that corporations prefer to give money directly to service organizations rather than to intermediary groups, and raises the question (Building on Strength, pp. 20-21) of corporate “responsibility.” Though this issue is beyond the scope of this paper to address in detail, some observations should be made. As the report itself acknowledges, corporate support for charity is motivated by business strategy, not philanthropy. This is as it should be. It is unclear why shareholders, whose portion of corporate earnings are taxed both at the corporate and individual levels, and who, additionally, are subject to capital gains tax, should be considered as having a greater responsibility than others to support charity. The Panel’s recommendations regarding corporations’ reporting their support for charities, and the setting of targets for levels of corporate support, are therefore misguided. Such matters are best left to individual businesses to decide on their own, and no government pressure should be brought to bear on them in this regard. As the final report notes, the goal of charity legislation is “to provide an incentive for people to give to causes that we, as citizens, deem to be of benefit to society.” (Building on Strength, p. 50). Placing public pressure on individuals to do so, either directly or indirectly, is quite a different matter.