The Givewell article makes a good case for it being a bad thing. This article goes further into it: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/a2gYyTnAP36TxqdQp/

The Givewell article makes a good case for it being a bad thing. This article goes further into it: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/a2gYyTnAP36TxqdQp/matching-donation-fundraisers-can-be-harmfully-dishonest https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/a2gYyTnAP36TxqdQp/... "Carl and Denise, who each have a fixed charity budget of $1. Carl and Denise are effective altruists, and want to maximize total utility with their charity budgets. Charities A creates 3 utils per dollar, and charity B creates 2 utils per dollar. By default, Carl and Denise will each give to charity A, creating 6 utils. Charity B approaches Carl with the idea that he make a match offer. Carl jumps at the opportunity to cause $2 to be given to charity B, creating 4 utils, one more than he'd have saved before. Denise finds out about the match offer, and switches her donation to charity B, on the same basis. But the total amount of money moved to charity B is not the "doubled" $2+$2=$4, but just $2, resulting in 4 utils. This is less than before!" Yes, the donors ultimately make the decision in both cases, but the matching complicates it somewhat. The donors aren't being forced, but are only being subtly tricked into making their decision based on illusory matching rather than making it based on which charity they think is best.