Yes.
Why must the donator not receive any benefit, emotional or otherwise, for it to be charity? Charity is considered from the perspective of the the party receiving the donation. For them, it’s absolutely charity. They are getting something and giving up nothing. Donating money to a school will benefit more people than just (potentially) your children.
You’re right. From the recipient’s perspective, any donated money or goods is charity. From my perspective, any financial gift to me is charity. However, I don’t expect gifts to me to harm others by decreasing the tax base from which they may expect to receive funds, so the $ given to me should not, through tax loopholes, be taken away from those who, through the democratic process, have been deemed to deserve them. Therefore, my pet charity is mine to help, at my own expense, as it should be. And so is yours. And those whom, through democracy, we have elected to help together, be they so-called inner-city welfare queens or millionaire corn farmers, collect the bounty. Your argument basically states that in order to receive an emotional benefit from giving you must also receive reimbursement for the gift. The best counter-argument I can come up with is: Yuck.
Not at all. Someone (not sure who) above posted that it is not charity if you feel good about the donation because that is a benefit you receive from the donation. I was just countering that. You can feel good about a donation and/or receive a tangible recompense, and it can still be charity.