We would consider companies foolish if they left sales on the table, even if they didn't immediately need it. Why would non-profits be expected to not fundraise as aggressively as possible?
The expectation that non-profits should be run on fumes is silly.
> Why would non-profits be expected to not fundraise as aggressively as possible?
I think the reason is that we expect, or assume, non-profits to have a better ethical stance than for-profit organization. That's the point of a non-profit organization after all: doing something because they feel it's the right thing to do, regardless whether it is profitable or not.
I do not share this expectation or assumption. The difference between a for-profit and a non-profit corporation is defined in the tax code. It’s a legal distinction, not an ethical one. Some non-profits exist mainly to enrich their officers, and some profitable corporations are mainly concerned with benefiting society.
>Some non-profits exist mainly to enrich their officers
This could very well be, but it goes against what first comes to the mind of most people when talking about a non-profit: the name itself implies that those companies are "not for profit" after all.
EDIT: I also think that the reason why most countries have a special tax law regarding non-profit organization, is to help people that want to do "the right thing" even if it is not profitable, not to provide their officers with an easier way to enrich themselves. So if a non-profit is being used by their officers to enrich themselves, I think it is correct to see them as people that are cheating the system. If they are doing it in a way that is technically legal, I would say they are probably exploiting some loophole.
I’m sorry, I thought that by “we” you were referring to a group of people including yourself (first person plural), not, in fact, “most people”, whom you seem to believe are naive and uninformed, a belief that is probably correct. Unless you were?
EDIT (replying to your edit): They are neither cheating nor exploiting any loophole. At least in the U.S., there is no limit to the total compensation that a non-profit corporation may pay to its officers. The law refers to “reasonable” compensation, which of course is meaningless. In 2019 there were so many officers of “charitable” corporations earning more than a million dollars annually that the IRS instituted an excise tax on their earnings (21% I think).
You highlight what the law say, and it is for sure interesting for me, as I'm not American and so ot familiar with US laws. But what I'm saying is that all laws are written for a reason. E.g. there are laws that say you can't kill another person because the vast majority of people agree that this is a thing that shouldn't be done. So what I'm saying here is that in this discussion we should also consider which was the reason behind the law, not just the technicalities of how the law is written.
The expectation that non-profits should be run on fumes is silly.