A charitable donation has been made in your name to The Human Fund

http://www.msgr.ca/msgr-2/festivus%2005.htm

The December 18, 1997 episode of Seinfeld, "The Strike,"  introduced the world to the ersatz holiday of Festivus and to "The Human Fund," a charity made up by series principal George Costanza (Jason Alexander, pictured at left) in effort to circumvent giving his co-workers actual gifts.

Re-stated, a gift to The Human Fund was about George and nothing else.  Combined with the other subplots, the entire episode was a work of brilliance, in my opinion.

Switching gears to the real world, one of my friends shared the photo found below on her Facebook Timeline today.  Please read the words on the photo very carefully:  "LIKE Kohl's on Facebook and we'll donate $1 to Toys for Tots, for every new 'like,' up to $500,000."  

As is often my observation, it appears as though people perceive that liking the photo (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151274486406248&set=a.87042276247.83170.17648521247&type=1&theater) fulfills the goal relative to the charity.  If the entire population of the world liked the photo, but Kohl's itself received no new likes, Toys for Tots would not receive a single penny.  Why this is a matter of debate absolutely escapes me.  The wording is transparent.

Let me make myself abundantly clear on a few points:

1)  I fully support Toys for Tots and appreciate the fact that retailers make charitable contributions, 

2)  It is usually my personal policy not to call out companies by name, instead opting for euphemistic references such as "a nationally recognized retail department store," and

3)  This case is different, because the offer plays upon people's sympathies and has more to do with Kohl's increasing their "like" count than it has to do with donating money to a charity.  I therefore take issue with Kohl's and any other company that frames generosity in terms of popularity.

Link provided above

Given that, the Facebook post is all about Kohl's, just as The Human Fund is all about George Costanza.

I am in no way finding fault with corporate philanthropy, of course; however, I find it distasteful that anyone might potentially withhold it based upon the response of others.  It could easily be argued "What's the difference?  This doesn't hurt anything!  Just 'like' the page and move on!"  The difference, as I see it, is between choice and manipulation, and that just makes me uncomfortable.

Now, liking Kohl's is probably the right thing to do, because withholding support from them only hurts the tots for whom the toys are intended.  One can always unlike them on a date after December 24th.  That is playing games, and I don't like to play games.

In closing, let me encourage you as a former employee of a faith-based non-profit organization to consider sharing your generosity throughout the year if you are in a position to do so.  We practically had to turn people away between Thanksgiving and New Year's, but getting help in August, for example, was challenging.

Thank you for your consideration.

EDIT 12/03/2012:  I may not have effectively communicated my thoughts about Kohl's in general, which are that I really enjoy shopping there.  In fact, probably half of my wardrobe consists of items that I bought there.  Again, my primary concern is that anyone would attach generosity to popularity.  That just seems inconsistent with the underlying philanthropic model.