I appreciate your consideration for my privacy, what of it I still have. Working in a small town, and in my business, which has both public and private components, it's important to preserve a little anonymity.
The first question has more to do with people giving to their churches, which then turn around and spend the money on them and their friends. Churches can be affiliated with relief organizations, sometimes actively so, but they aren't always. The former is charitable; the latter is self-help. While there's nothing wrong with contributing to organizations that benefit mainly the groups you belong to, it's not the same as a charity that benefits people based on need rather than membership. The two things are, however, tallied in the same column.
My second question refers to this quote from the article:
EntreÂpreneurs contribute to educational organizations more often than to any other group; nearly 80 perÂcent of their charitable donations are given to orgaÂnizations supporting art, culture, religion, or education, or to a foundation or charitable fund.[4] Similar to their peers, successful entrepreneurs rarely give to organizations that support basic needs, health care, or disaster relief.[5] Perhaps these are examples of government aid obstructing private assistance.
Government aid never obstructs donations to basic needs, health care, or disaster relief. The need is always there. On the other hand, it's harder to get public recognition for these kinds of donations. That says something to me about the motive of the donor rather than about interference by government. If one wants to be center stage, it's hard to compete with the government. If one wants to help, it's not a competition.
We've had donors who would only give if they got to slap their name onto something on public display.
If it's a business, I get it perfectly: it's a commercial. Businesses are just as likely to sponsor programming if they're assured that the name will be mentioned prominently. They're less worried about permanence than exposure.
If it's an individual, I get that too: they want to be immortalized. We're not talking about families who give a gift book in honor of a child's birthday. That creates a special, though temporary ownership for the child. (I have such a hard time withdrawing birthday, birth announcement, and memorial books...) The people I mean are the ones who need their own names engraved on stuff. Instead of giving where it's needed, they want a new piece of furniture or something else that can have a label on it. I'm sort-of OK with this as long as they don't try to tell us what to put in the library, but the best donors are the ones who don't care if we use the money to repair the HVAC, even though we can't label it.
This differs from run of the mill recognition, such as printing the names of all donors in a special edition of the newsletter, or hosting a donor reception. When my dad donated, he didn't even want that. All he wanted was a receipt for his taxes. Once, when an organization called up to find out how he wanted his name engraved on a plaque, he got really mad and told them that if they engraved anything he was stopping the check.