Related:
"We now have evidence of how at least $7.7 billion for homelessness was spent on salaries. They created a jobs program that grows at the expense of the actual homeless who need help instead of helping the homeless."
Also - you have no evidence for '95% of NGO's and their ilk'.
This is not Twitter.
So they get around centuries old restrictions on governments, get taxed like charities and donate heavily to political campaigns. That set of properties can and should draw significant criticism. When you act like they are charities, it just makes you seem naive. If they were charities, they would call themselves charities.
They are entities that have a civic purpose, not for profit.
Yes, they can in some cases support political causes, that is normal.
You seem to have a narrow view of what 'community' is aka something is either a 'charity' or 'government' - the world is more complicated than that.
" That set of properties can and should draw significant criticism. " - no, the properties of fine.
They can be scrutinized like any organizaition: charity, private company, ngo, government, etc.
America Medial Association, AARP (retired people) are NGOs, they advocate for their causes, that's perfectly reasonable and normal.
They are not 'for profit' obviously, and they're not strictly charities.
People can group together and organize as they please. Donations to NGOs are not tax deductible.
2) We have different regulations for different types of institutions
3) NGOs specifically exist to get around those regulations
4) A lobbying group (AARP) should have specific rules around how it can function. Lumping them with a professional standards organization makes it impossible to have reasonable anti-corruption laws. That's why NGOs exist, to make it impossible to enforce corruption laws. There is literally no other reason for it to exist as a category. We already have categories for lobbying groups and professional groups and charities.
If they had a true civic purpose, they would call themselves charities. The specific reason they don't is because an audit of their spending wouldn't meet the standards of a charity. Remember, charities can take government money. They just can't do it in exchange for a service. NGOs can. That's not about civic purpose. Its about different administrative standards. Standards that allow abuse. That's the entire point of them using the term NGO instead of charity.
NGOs are not charities, they exist for a different reason.
The American Medical Association is 'civic purpose'.