OP here. Couple things. My logic is that not ALL high earning households itemize and are given any tax break on charitable giving. My family has an income of 145K but we don't itemize. We live in a modest home and our finances are quite simple.
As for the question: don't people already make informed decisions about charity? Honestly, I'm not so sure. For a lot of people it's $10 here, $25 there and sometimes $100 for something they are passionate about. If a family could sock away 1K or 2K every year (more upper middle class families, I admit) then I could envision families making serious decisions about what to support and why.
Finally, I do admit this is a tax cut. No doubt about it, which is why I haven't thought too hard about the policy question of what the annual max could be. This also brings into the discussion, what charities should be included. I tend to think any non-profit complying with the law. I work in fundraising for one of those universities with a multi billion dollar endowment. I admit I'm biased, but if an individual wants to create a scholarship at my university for a disadvantaged person, that's still a really cool thing for society. Also, our big endowment university does conduct research in all kinds of fields (including medicine) that ultimately benefits everyone.
As for the administrative costs with this. I admit it's an issue. But the health savings accounts are still a good value. I don't see why the same idea couldn't apply to philanthropy.
This might allow someone to save their philanthropic dollars until they are ready to select the right charity. And it would funnel resources into the stock market.