That's false. You're only legally required to act in the interest of shareholders. That can mean a lot of things.
Acting in the interests of shareholders is problematic, as different shareholders have different interests (especially minority vs majority).
And by keeping the duty to act in the interests of the company, directors are not required to focus on short-term profitability and shareholder dividends; decisions can be justified as being in the long-term interests of the company, and better for the company's reputation and culture, even if they don't deliver shareholders the maximum short-term gains.
Name a US company that lost market share for not paying more taxes than required.
They should invest more when it comes to good causes, yeah.
No, with the people. What you could do is a direct deposit in each American bank account in a very public way.
180M adults * 10USD = 1.8B
Not a joke but also not that much for Google to build long lasting goodwill among the public
In one swoop you delegitimize politicians by doing direct payments (maybe even a PR campaign with "money for nothing" as soundtrack) and win the public favor.
"UBI-light" offered by Google..so many PR angles to think this thing through