Charitably Guilt-Tripping

Well, I finally understand the sinister psychology underneath those free mailing labels, pens, and other items with just enough utility that we just can’t throw them out.  The secret is you can’t throw the stuff out so it!!  So every time you use the pens or mailing labels, you are reminded that some “poor” charity (or its for-profit solicitation firm) is struggling because you didn’t make a donation in exchange for the pens or labels you never asked for in the first place but are using right now!  Its all right here in this WSJ editorial.

To increase their chances for a share of those funds, charities have learned that a free token or gift goes a long way. Recipients will often feel guilty about not making a donation and will be even more ashamed if they use the gift without paying for it.  I struggle with this every time an unsolicited mailer arrives with greeting cards, kids’ socks, or other tchotchkes. By law, “you may keep such shipments as free gifts,” according to the Federal Trade Commission. But few of us treat this issue in legal terms. It’s not practical to send the items back, even though Boys Town tells me that a small percentage of people do. I tried giving the things I receive away, but I’ve found no takers. Tossing perfectly good pens and paper in the trash makes no sense. So I use the stuff, reminding myself that I make my share of charitable donations every year—just not necessarily to the organizations that keep filling my mailbox. Still, a tinge of guilt remains.

Guilt, especially in a capitalist world, is a great motivator for altruism.  Its why I give to panhandlers every now and again, quite frankly.  Pure guilt, and also hedging my bets of getting into Heaven I guess.  In small town Nampa Idaho (why anybody would chose Nampa over Tampa is a mystery to me), the City Council has made it easier for me to keep on walking without feeling guilty if I don’t give to panhandlers:

Signs like this would help alleviate my anti-panhandler guilt, and if I later forgot to send a donation to NPR or something, I would be that much richer and less guilty.  The loudest opposition to the signs comes from the Nampa nonprofits, apparently:

In October, Nampa City Council unanimously authorized police to spend up to $1,800 to develop 10 anti-panhandling signs and place them throughout the city. Nine signs have been installed so far, and the final sign’s location is yet to be determined, though staff are considering areas near Interstate 84 on- and off-ramps.  The signs have spurred backlash from community members, particularly from local nonprofit leader Kenton Lee of Because International. Lee has opposed the signs from the beginning and has come before the council multiple times to argue that the signs categorize the city’s homeless population as drug addicts or alcoholics, and later asked why the signs say “no panhandling” when city code does not specifically ban panhandling.

I would wager that guilt motivates a lot more charitable giving than the Tax Code.  But I could be wrong.

dkj