Do Celebrities Benefit from Philanthropy?

When Warren Buffet announced in a press conference that he was going to give Bill and Melinda Gates $1.5billion a year for their foundation, he stated that his family knew their wealth was meant to, in part, benefit society.  Bill and Melinda in the same conference nodded in agreement, being themselves the biggest philanthropist couple in the world.  These three rich magnanimous souls feel compelled to give back, to let others benefit from their wealth and power.  They are selfless and seek nothing in return.  Celebrities and philanthropists of the Gates kind are the few exceptions to the political world: they give money to campaigns and causes and expect nothing back.  What could they expect?  They are already rich, famous, and substantially powerful in their own regard, how could they benefit from less poverty or free universal preschool?  Directly, they cannot.  Money coming out of celebrities' pockets stays out of their pockets.  Knowing this, could it be that they seek something else, something not so tangible as cash? 
Celebrities and philanthropists have as much as we could imagine to want: money, fame, public acceptance, great influence at work.  They have all these amenities while tackling one major necessary attachment: loss of privacy.  As long as the idea of fame has been adored, so has our interest in those who relish in that fame.  The American public, in this particular case, loves to hear about the latest celebrity breakup or the Hollywood star currently in rehab, or the singer who just ran over a dog, etc.  Details, details, details.  An industry has flourished over this quasi-obsession (it is worse in other countries, like England, for example, where tabloids are a daily necessity).  Billions of dollars have been made from the plights and privacy of the famed.  So has the paparazzi.  The cameraman with a penchant for the "not-now" time celebrities often enjoy at the beach or with their kids is now a staple of our pop culture.  Mainly because it is one of the main providers of it. 
What does this all mean for celebrities?  It means that a counter-industry has been created to counter their existence.  While they work in Hollywood and Silicon Valley, the Obsession Industry has no boundaries when it comes to workplace.  They go where the action is, no matter how private it may appear to the rest of society.  The more forbidden the better, so the OI hungers for the one in a million shot or story. The celebrity and famed community have often tried to hamper the reach of these nosey neds, claiming that taking pictures of them in their own home is against the law, or that a story is personal and should not be publicized, or that coming up to them with their baby in hand is dangerous for the little tyke.  Almost all of these have been unsuccessful attempts.  Court order after court order, judges have not been able to cement what these philanthropists want: a law for privacy.  A constitutional amendment making privacy part of the Bill of Rights has been suggested...but as of today, nothing.  Could it be that celebrities want to use their air of goodwill to pull along a law that will save their privacy?  Are they lobbying indirectly, giving money to charities and campaigns in exchange for a push for an addition to the bill of rights?  Adding the amount of money given by celebrities, they must truly cherish their alone time.