This. Is. Infuriating. If you follow the link, you'll see that Bono's "charity" collected $15M to help starving African children but only distributed 185K. The lion's share of the money it collected was for the executives and employees and the charities, not the cause for which donors gave the money. To make things worse, this "charity" tried to entice donors to help out by handing out $15 bags containing Starbucks coffee and designer water bottles. This should be criminal. It happens in charities small and large. Not all charities, but many of them. And how did it ever get to be acceptable that in order to convince me to give money to a charity, that that charity should first give something to me? Classic case: Girl Scout cookies. If you are approached to give to most internet causes, you are asked to decide what GIFT you'd like as part of the deal. Coffee mug? T-Shirt? Musical CD? I understand Robert Cialdini's finding that reciprocation is a great way to manipulate a potential donor:

Reciprocation. People are more willing to comply with requests (for favors, services, information, concessions, etc.) from those who have provided such things first. For example, according to the American Disabled Veterans organization, mailing out a simple appeal for donations produces an 18% success rate; but, enclosing a small gift–personalized address labels–boosts the success rate to 35%

On the other hand, how refreshing it is (in the rare cases) where you are convinced to give to a charity simply because it seems to be doing a good job, and where there's nothing in it for you (other than the fact that you are displaying to others that you are a generous person). Maybe there is no such thing as altruism . . .