J Gerard,

I agree with you that legitimate charities deserve the support of the general public. But the point of the article is to draw a distinction between those organizations and companies that are claiming to redirect money to those orginizations on a purchase by purchase basis.

If you want to support breast cancer research, don’t buy something pink, just give directly to the charity of your choice, even if it’s merely the amount you would have spent on a pink scarf, socks, gloves, hats, etc.

And one more word on the subject:  Experience has proved that the best aid is aid which enables the recipient not just to live—as important as that is—but to learn to lift him/herself out of poverty by being given access to skills and provided with materials that will lead to self-sufficiency and/or improving his/her own living standard. Access to small, noninterest start-up loans is important, too. Experience has shown that empowerment is where it’s at—individuals, small groups, cooperatives, families, villages.

Yeah, well this is a pretty thin presentation of a problem, and, overall, tends to discourage people from supporting causes.  It’s true that charitable organizations sometimes misuse funds and support high administrative costs etc.  But any organization’s financial reports can be checked out before donating, especially since the net is at hand.
  Second, consider this: Most charitable organizations are picking up some urgent need that isn’t being filled by government or corporate funding. People “in the field” are generally close to where the money is going and have some say in how it is spent. They have closer personal experience than corporate or government donors. They see dire needs close up. They spend almost no money on advertising.  This may be a leading clue to their integrity.
  And speaking of “hurdles” that “consumers must overcome” if their “two cents worth” etc. etc.: How “merchandised” can you get?  People who support charitable causes are “givers” not “consumers.”