It’s that time of year again, when shoppers get bombarded with requests to give to charity. The means by which the charity is raised, however, deserves a little scrutiny.

Don’t you think it is a little suspicious when a company asks for point-of-purchase charitable donations?

You know how it goes: “Would you like to give a dollar to help children suffering from Legionnaire’s disease?”

OK, I made that charitable cause up, but as I pull out my wallet, considering these type of donations for a split second, I think about the size of the companies doing the asking. It isn’t some mom-and-pop shop trying to help a local loved one pay medical bills. Usually, it’s a great big company, such as a fast-food chain. Why can’t the companies just donate some of their profits the causes of their choosing?

Look at Target. That company does it the right way. You go there, and you know 5 percent of the profits go to charitable causes. Target doesn’t make a huge fuss over the fact, either.

To be sure, fast-food chains aren’t the only ones doing it, but it is clear that chain-style companies — whether they sell groceries, hardware, clothes or doohickeys — are the ones doing it. Why do multinational chains need my money to help charitable causes? Aren’t the companies rich enough to do it on their own?

What’s worse, the companies market it as a reason to shop there. I saw a TV commercial for a large company asking viewers to shop at their stores and, via a donation from the shoppers, to help them give to some worthy cause. Again, why can’t the big companies do it themselves? They do it this way, too: Come in now and buy any of this line of products and we will give $10 to help this cause.

Isn’t philanthropy supposed to be a personal, thoughtful act, not a commercial means to get you to shop at a certain place?

As the editor, I am one of the managers here at the Albert Lea Tribune. We don’t ask our readers to give to a charity when they purchase a subscription. But as a company we do give to charities in Freeborn County, and we don’t make a big deal of it. Sure, you might see our banner at events or perhaps some good words from event coordinators holding microphones, but we don’t become gaudy about philanthropy.

And in my personal finances, I like to give to charity one of three different ways:

1. Write a check at home and mail it, usually after sorting through bills. One example: I sent money to the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation earlier this year. I like animals and feel they need habitat. We humans are habitat hogs.

2. Have the donation deducted from my paycheck. One example: I give to the United Way of Freeborn County. What’s ironic is the United Way is supposed to be a way to consolidate charity requests but the requests from outside organizations seem to proliferate anyway. United Way strengthens our community.

3. Give money as part of an event, such as a pancake breakfast, a wine tasting, a car wash, a bake sale, a bowl-o-rama, a church service and so on. One example: I supported the Pelican Breeze at a fish fry earlier this year. It feels good to attend charity events. Everyone is in good spirits.

I suppose a fourth way would be through my last will and testament, but I hope to avoid dying anytime soon.

The similarity among these methods is I give directly to the charity, not trusting some far-off corporation to get my money to the correct place.

The New York Times had a story about point-of-purchase charity last December. Nonprofit experts pointed out the lack of regulations surrounding point-of-purchase giving and the unwillingness of corporations and their charities to divulge their agreements. Your money might not make it to the charity, and if it does, it usually takes a long time. Plus, it’s hard for the giver to record the tax-deductible claim.

And they blasted the use of charity as a shopping gimmick.

“It’s virtuousness as a marketing gimmick run amok,” Lucy Bernholz told the Times. She is founder and president of Blueprint Research and Design, a consulting firm for nonprofit organizations, who has coined the term “embedded giving” to describe the phenomenon. “The potential for it to be a scam is huge.”

The story pointed out that in some cases the charities didn’t know they were in the marketing plans. It also told of how sometimes clerks would treat customers poorly for declining to give.

“The checkout clerk then started to grill me about why I didn’t want to,” Jack Siegel, a New York tax lawyer, told the Times about an experience at a grocery store. “And I honestly think she handled my bananas more roughly than they usually do.”

In summary, companies should be doing charity on their own, not making their customers do it for them. Let’s not mix our everyday shopping needs with our philanthropy.

Tribune Managing Editor Tim Engstrom’s column appears every Tuesday.