It seems to me there are a couple angles here.
First, let’s say that 1,000 people donate to build a church. It would seem to me to be proper to have 1,000 bricks inscribed with their names in the foyer or someplace. It’s not to glorify them, it’s to emphasize that so many people donated, and it’s a church for all the people, not some rich benefactor.
Second, let’s say you give $100 million to a university or a hospital and they build a library or a cancer wing or something and want to name it after you. I would refuse and ask them to name it after someone I admired who was connected with the institution–after a thorough background check of that person to make sure there are no skeletons.
Third, if you give small amounts (for me that would be $50 or so), I would never attach my name to it. Not just because of modesty, because I would be inundated with requests by mail, phone, e-mail…in fact, I do give to a charity regularly–on condition they never, ever approach me for a donation. As soon as they do, my donations stop. So far they have honored my wishes.
Those rich folks who give tons of money (Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Carnegie Foundation, Gates Foundation, etc.) are either a) trying to make amends for overcharging customers and underpaying workers (if they didn’t do either, they wouldn’t have all those millions…) or b) having control so they can curry favor with politicians, people they need a favor from, etc.
But on the other hand, no one is forcing them to give away their money. They could have simply bought another yacht or another election. So a poor motive still leads to a good outcome.