The benefits of using String.Empty

Answer 1

There is no meaningful difference. See these (and other) questions elsewhere on SO:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/263191/in-c-should-i-use-string-empty-or-string-empty-or
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1887430/why-is-string-empty-more-efficient-than-in-net
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2905378/string-empty-versus-closed
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1028170/what-is-the-difference-between-string-empty-and-and-null-closed
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3192293/which-should-i-use-for-empty-string-and-why-closed
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3342358/difference-between-string-empty-and-closed

Answer 2

As has been mentioned string.Empty creates no object where as "" will create an object (albeit pulled out of the pool). The performance difference is minimal but the question should be what is more readable. I take the stance that string.Empty sticks out more than "" and I can clearly see the intent of the declaration (string.Empty vs null). Regardless of your choice you should be consistent throughout your code base.

String.Empty vs ""