I tried to make this observation before, but my point doesn't seem to have been addressed in this followup.

Throwing money in the direction of a problem without checks and balances to ensure that the money is actually spent productively is wrong.

For example, suppose that Dark Side Charity's message is just like Light Side Charity's message: "give me money to save the world". However, Dark Side Charity doesn't spend the money on saving the world, but on sending out more and more requests. Giving money to Dark Side Charity would be wrong. Because the two charities's requests are identical, giving money to Light Side Charity based only on the request is also wrong.

You might argue that you just need to estimate the probability that you are talking to the Light Side. However, remember that Dark Side Charity will grow when someone sends it money, changing the frequency that Dark Side Charity requests are encountered. If (as might well be the case) the system is already at equilibrium, then your probability estimate will depend primarily on the force stopped the positive feedback - e.g. the cost of sending the request. Spam is frequent primarily because it is cheap to send.

My suggestion: Incorporate this idea into the request for money, and proffer evidence that the money is being spent well. A list of "this is how we spent last year's money" isn't sufficient - Dark Side Charity could easily make a list. Independent 3rd party auditor's stamp of approval might help. Successes broadcast to the world might help. Accepting volunteers even though it seems inefficient might help.