It's a bit tacky to be calling out a company in public, don't you think? Especially when you openly admit it that it is hard to find what they do for charity...because they choose not to publicize it (which is pretty admirable in my book).

But in case this helps, Apple has been a very strong driving force with Hurricane Katrina recovery in New Orleans. They have spent millions of dollars in resources, through materials, equipment, and man-hours by employees, to help rebuild the technology infrastructure of schools and provide mobile technology labs that can go from school to school when it isn't possible to put one onsite. And it's not in past tense. They CONTINUE to do so.

It's actually refreshing knowing about it personally as a resident of Louisiana, but also seeing that the company isn't trying to capitalize on it or have any gain from it. It is TRULY philanthropic in nature. And Apple is not the only one. I'm not going to provide anybody else any publicity. I'm just responding to Mr. Martellaro's story about this one particular incidence.

The number of kids starving in a first world democracy has nothing to do with the economy or philanthropy. It is a reflection of the values of the voting population.

Apple is not "wealthy" because they overcharge people. The create a product, price it to its value then the public decides if it is willing to pay that price and purchase it.

In the meantime, Apple doesn't go on a buying spree and keeps its fiscal house in order only to be taken to the woodshed by a hack of an article. I for one don't get it. This seems to be part of a larger movement to penalize people and companies that do well and behave smartly.

First off, I agree, we don't know how much Apple is involved in philanthropy so don't condemn what you don't know. Secondly, Apple is better poised to keep its wits and focus through all of this and innovate. THAT will be its legacy to humanity, not feeding a few kids because society and in some cases government can't do its job.

GO APPLE! Give me that next great product and change our lives! No one else seems to be able to do it.

This has to be the stupidest post I've read in a long time.

He repudiated the Republican mantra of "I'm rich, you're on your own.

Well John... open up your books so we can see how much you gave...

Many poor countries have received wheat that the 'have' countries of the world had stock piled. The gesture is intended to be caring and helpful. The immediate effect is to create a need for distribution which is often filled by corrupt officials or criminal elements. They charge the poor for the food at less than market rates and use the money to build a stronger corrupt empire. The unintended consequences of selling (or giving as intended) wheat to the poor is that the farmers can't compete and don't plant for the next year. Now the poor country is in worse shame then before and have become dependent on handouts.

If Apple were to very visibly and publicly grant a mere $1 million per quarter to the neediest, it would only amount to 1/8000th of their revenues or 1/6000th of their cash.

John is onto something! If Apple produced an iTunes only TV show where they seek out needy people and have them compete in various events to earn the title of "America's Most Neediest", they could earn far more than the million dollars in prize money. I want to see a laid off Wall Street employee digging through a dumpster for leftover tofu and organically grown bananas. That would be compelling. In HD. On my AppleTV.

Or, if that's out of the question, maybe AAPL could start paying a dividend like a real grown-up company.

Go read "Atlas Shrugged" and then re-read what you wrote.

companies exist for profit that is put back in the hands of investors. Investors should be free to choose which charities they donate to. Corporations who give shareholder's money to charities are usually giving them to charities or causes of the officers or directors of the company. It shouldn't be allowed. Why should apple give to causes that i may not want them to contribute to. after all, it's not their money, it's my money. and it's that much less i can give to my charities and causes. Honestly, if you can't prove as a company that a donation helps the bottom line, then i don't think you should contribute anything. On the other hand, let's talk about apple paying dividends so i can have income, and not capital appreciation, to spread my wealth around.

Hey, how about some of these big univerisity endowments pony up some money? what's harvard sitting on, 32 billion?

and let's get over the politics or move it onto another blog.

Giving to support those in need should be an individual effort, not a corporate effort, or even a government effort. We seem to have forgotten that principle a while back. Want to help. then go out and help. Don't have the money, forgo your weekly viewing of Nasty Housewives and spend the time as a volunteer somewhere. When we get back to neighbor helping neighbor, instead of expecting others to do it for us, we will become a much stronger nation.

OBAMA'S CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS...
I found this to be rather interesting list, it's Obama's CHARITABLE DONATIONS expressed as a % of his income...do you notice how his hitherto miserly contributions suddenly INCREASE as his political prospects increase? Mmmmm...now surely Obama wouldn't be just another calculating political opportunist, would he?

2006: 6.1% (and you gotta ask yourself,
2005: 4.7% where did this money really come from)
2004: 1.2%
2003: 1.4%
2002: 0.4%
2001: 0.5%
2000: 0.9%

Obama's Charitable Contributions

On March 26, 2008, the New York Times published a story about Michelle and Barack Obama's charitable contributions for 2001 through 2006. Here is an excerpt from the article:
Senator Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, sharply increased their charitable donations as Mr. Obama began to run for president and the family?s income increased from book sales, according to tax returns that the couple released on Tuesday.
Some of the largest donations went to the Trinity United Church of Christ, whose pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., has been in the news for inflammatory messages in his sermons, causing Mr. Obama to distance himself from Mr. Wright, his former spiritual mentor
One interesting point in the article is the last paragraph that refers to a $13,000 donation to "Congressional Black Caucus" in 2006. This is clearly an error and the donation had to have gone to "Congressional Black Caucus Foundation," which is listed in the IRS publication 78 as a proper charitable donation recipient. Query why the article states that "The campaign said Mr. Obama had filed an amended return to eliminate that item as a deduction"?
Fellow Blogger and Tax Law Professor, Paul Caron, is quoted in the article as saying that: "Their charitable giving only went up when it looked like he was campaigning for the presidential office.?
For the entire story, see "Obamas? Tax Returns Show Donation Spike" in the March 26, 2008, edition of the New York Times.

WASHINGTON ? Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden and his wife gave an average of $369 a year to charity during the past decade, his tax records show.
Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's campaign today released 10 years' worth of tax returns for Biden, a senator from Delaware, and his wife Jill, a community college instructor. The Bidens reported earning $319,853 last year, including $71,000 in royalties for his memoir, Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics.

The Bidens reported giving $995 in charitable donations last year ? about 0.3% of their income and the highest amount in the past decade. The low was $120 in 1999, about 0.1% of yearly income.

Over the decade, the Bidens reported a total of $3,690 in charitable donations, or 0.2% of their income.

Give to the poor! It will just make them lazy, and want more and more. I don't have to work because I'm smart, and I invest. Why can't the poor just be like that?

To suggest anything else, makes you a goddamn, homosexual, communist, spy!

Are you kidding me? "Stupid" is an understatement and doesn't begin to describe this post. Looter!

Well, the knees are certainly jerking today.

And here's mine, in reaction to the pillock guest(s) above promoting the works of Ayn Rand: John Galt's quote: I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

Pah! And again I say, "Pah!" It's a pathetic self-serving excuse for not helping others. And fie upon you if you ever need help yourself.

Apple is not a charity, and their fiduciary duty is to increase their shareholders' equity. The shareholders have the prerogative to make charitable contributions. The corporation does not.

Let's see your tax returns with your charitable contributions. Obama made substantially more in 2008 than he did in 2000.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Are you kidding me? "Stupid" is an understatement and doesn't begin to describe this post. Looter!

Well, I thought it was funny.

wow. earned substantially more? so what. "percent" is a relative measure. sounds like most democrats: unwilling, but not unable, to give to charitable causes. and before someone goes off on this, check out this link:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

conservatives give 30% more than liberals.

interesting, isn't it.

That money belongs to the shareholders. Why should poor people get a dividend from Apple when the shareholders don't?

Apple's support against Prop 8 was bad enough, now you want them to spend more of my money on other causes that you like? Screw you.

I swear, it seems these days any time a liberal sees a pile of money, especially money that was *earned* (by someone else, of course), they just have to spend it on behalf of whomever was unfortunate enough to actually do the earning.

Die in a fire.

PS: Prop 8 was bad, and it's a shame that it passed.
PPS: Poor people deserve our charity
PPPS: Charity comes from the heart, so convince Apple to pay dividends so I can give my money to charity.

Except for the fact that Jobs and a lot of other apple big shots have a lot of their equity in Apple stock, Apple has very little incentive to pay a dividend--whether their stock is trading at $1 or $100, the company will continue to do what it does well, making good products and happy consumers. Very few of the people holding stock and want a dividend did anything to help apple fiscally--they just bought the stock form someone else, who, a long way down the chain, paid apple quite a bit less than it is now "worth" Apple seems an enlightened company because they care very little what wall street and their analysts think. Charity might build good PR, giving money back to stockholders would do little. People who hold apple stock are either already happy with the company and its stock's growth, or are pragmatists who see the investment as worthwhile in any case.

Dang right he did, HE WAS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT .... DUDE ... HE SUDDENLY WANTED TO LOOK LIKE HE REALLY CARED ABOUT THE POOR. And his work as a Community Organizer with ACORN forcing banks to loan money to poor people who couldn't pay for a house payment over inflating housing prices has given them, and us, the current economy. Thanks alot!!!

All Candidates $1,552,700,000 That's $1.55 BILLION That's a lot of meals.

Democrats $963.5 million (Obama's $639.2 million plus Clinton's $221.0 M)

Republicans $589.2 (McCain (R) $335.3M plus Romney (R) 105.1M)

Maybe there should be limitations for campaign spending with the rest going to 'feed kids'.

There was a 'joke' that I was told overseas in an essentially Third World country by a psychologist: "When you give one of my countrymen a gift, where is he looking?"

Answer he give was "At your other hand to see what else you have for him."

Teach a person to fish and he'll feed his family ... and all that.

Same reason I take the guy carrying the sign into the restaurant and buy him a meal. Give him the money ... and he buys the cheap wine. And I've been told he didn't want food, "just give me the money."

I know, I know. I'm going to hell and I'll be miserable with all those politicians, most of them former lawyers. I've already lived to long and learned too much. That's why I've got this attitude. The only good things in life are my wife and my MAC ... and sometimes my wife makes me mad.