However….as has already been pointed out, that's not really the point. As you pointed out yourself, Jeccat, these enormous corporations DO have the infrastructure to work directly with not-for-profits to disseminate the information and products that would help eliminate or at least reduce the problems they are targeting. Taking money and marketing time away from the smaller, grassroots, not-for-profits seems to be directly opposed to what Amex was intending to do. And that should have been acknowledged and corrected. Disingenuous explanations should not have been accepted as reasons why this is "ok." It's not ok. Something like this really has the ability to turn people (like me) off of the whole idea…it comes across as yet another way for the big guy to gain $$ and free publicity at the expense of the little guy, who loses proportionately WAY more money and publicity.

Just my 2 cents

Proof? P&G put those water purifiers on the market in the US the day before their project made the top 5 in this contest. And they have been giving them away overseas for years.

No one's saying kids don't deserve to have clean drinking water. That's not the issue at all. The issue is that P&G is using this great contest in the wrong way, and they're deliberately being shady about it, and AmEx is ignoring all of that.

This isn't really about Donors Choose at this point. It's about Amex refusing to admit that this was a mistake on a number of levels, and compromising the integrity of the whole thing as a result.

Not to mention the fact that, by the time the X million dollars makes its way through P&G's giant infrastructure/overhead complex, there'll be like 14K left for actual water treatment. Not the case at DC. Just saying.

You ask why P&G doesn't just give the filters away. Unfortunately, much social marketing research shows that people don't value things that are given away. They are much more likely to use and value things that cost them something to acquire. (There's a possibly apocryphal story about a health worker returning to a village to find the malaria bednets she had distributed to one family turned into a wedding dress.) Plus, if companies find that they can actually make a profit (or at least break even) from selling health-promoting product X to poor people they will continue to supply product X even if funding dries up (and it does dry up– anyone who has studied global health funding knows that the cash and attention comes in waves– family planning funds, anyone?)

So again, maybe this project doesn't belong in Donor's Choose, but please don't discount the crucial role that for-profit companies can play in global health.

(Full disclosure: I work for a non-profit global health organization, but we have collaborations with several large companies that some of you may think of as bad corporate citizens. However, they have distribution networks and other resources we lack. I wish more big for-profit companies would put as much effort into corporate social responsibility as P&G!)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Sars.

As both an American Express cardholder and a prior donor to DonorsChoose (which is an awesome charity, by the way, and you should go donate to them regardless of whether they win), I had been dutifully voting for them in each round of the American Ex…

That being said…all you Amex card-holders hurry up and vote Donors Choose!!

Speaking of Donors Choose – I just received a packet of thank you notes from a 5th grade class in San Francisco. The direct feedback, and the proof of direct impact of the contributions makes it a great charity.

Sars, thanks for telling people about Donors Choose – I learned about them through Tomato Nation, and I've given every year since then.