If the only way they can exist is by doing things so morally reprehensible that they have to keep everyone ignorant of their actions then they shouldn't exist.
However, admitting that publically would embarrass the official (if named), remove the efficacy of all future bribes (which are by nature secret), and could even open the organization up to legal action.
I don't, FWIW, think that's what's going on here, but it's a plausible enough line. Certainly better than "I already told you everything you need to know!"
Except in this case it seems they bribed so many corrupt officials that there was nothing left for actual aide...
I think it's far more plausible they just waste the money away on "Administrative" fees and project mismanagement at enormous scale.
This is a "charitable" organization which has run rampant and unchecked for a long, long time. Nobody has dared to question the organization before because of the stone wall of "charitable projects and relief" they've constructed.
The fact that they are a "not-for-profit" foundation that survives on donations (2.9 Billion USD in 2014) yet wont disclose financials really turns me off. I can't help but feel there is corruption within the organization leading to purposeful waste of income as well as possible embezzlement by high ranking executives.
Something about non-profits seem to make them sacrosanct. If you criticize them among friends, it's almost certain that someone will rip into you for being miserly and not caring about the poor $VICTIMS.
Cynically, I think the root of this tendency is the fact that many people don't care about the efficacy of a donation, as such, but only about how it indicates the giver is a morally superior being, over all those non-givers. Whether the organization blows the money on coke and hookers (or, more plausibly, ineffective staffing and programs) is besides the point.
Especially organizations with powerful brands, like the Red Cross.
Hire someone to offer the bribe. Target a well-known corrupt official, and gather lots of evidence to make it obvious that a bribe has happened. Publish the results, get a scalp.
On top of punishing the individual corrupt official, if every official knows that any bribe offered might be a trap, they'd be much more likely to turn it down. Certainly makes the cost of bribery for bribers a lot more expensive to account for the extra risk.
Hell, you don't even need to hire someone. Just have an open offer that if someone can prove they successfully bribed an official, you'll pay them three times the bribe amount.
Busting lower level folks probably won't fix anything. You'll just get mired in their terrible slowness and endless rules, pointless paperwork and so on. At least bribing folks, you can get stuff done.
Also, at what point does "compromising things for the greater good" become untenable? To go down the argumentum ad absurdum route, if we learned that the Red Cross were hiring contract killers to eliminate officials that were standing in the way of building homes for Haitians would that be something they shouldn't do, or that they should do but they should keep quiet about? At some point it is right to say "Let's not do that even if it means people will suffer." That's definitely before killing people, obviously, but is it before bribing people?