I think plastic straws are likely to be your best bet, but here are some alternatives. In each case I'm aiming for popular causes (not just individual laws or the like) where your readers should be able to see why people thought it was a good idea, even if ultimately unsuccessful:
Thanks for doing this analysis, and for writing up in such a way as to introduce this technique to a wider audience!
This is a very broad category; Belisarius reconquered Italy with a carefully planned campaign and an army on the approximate scale of the EA movement!
He was also apparently instrumental in pushing through a big grant for Our World In Data despite the sclerotic procurement process.
A lot of this is going to rest on your specific moral views and the way you define the question, rather than historical factual issues, I suspect.
We have no solution better than opening windows, at the cost of losing control of the temperature.
What's especially interesting is that the one article that kick-started her career was, by truth-orientated standards, quite poor. For example, she suggested that Amazon was able to charge unprofitably low prices by selling equity/debt to raise more cash - but you only have to look at Amazon's accounts to see that they have been almost entirely self-financing for a long time. This is because Amazon has actually been cashflow positive, in contrast to the impression you would get from Khan's piece. (More detail on this and other problems here).
Depressingly this suggests to me that a good strategy for gaining political power is to pick a growing, popular movement, become an extreme advocate of it, and trust that people will simply ignore the logical problems with the position.
Yup, I agree with that, and am typically happy to make such requested changes.
Thanks very much for doing this useful work! This seems like the sort of project that should definitely exist, but basically inexplicably fails to come about until some random person decides to do it.
I hate to give you more work after you have perhaps already put in more time on this than everyone else combined, but I can think of two things that might make this even more useful:
I'd also be curious about whether evaluators generally should or shouldn't give the people and organizations being evaluated the chance to respond before publication.
My experience is that it is generally good to share a draft, because organisations can be very touchy about irrelevant details that you don't really care much about and are happy to correct. If you don't give them this opportunity they will be annoyed and your credibility will be reduced when the truth comes out, even if it doesn't have any real logical bearing on your conclusions. This doesn't protect you against different people in the org having different views on the draft, and some objecting afterwards, but it should get you most of the way there.
On the other hand it is a little harder if you want to be anonymous, perhaps because you are afraid of retribution, and you're definitely right that it adds a lot of time cost.
I don't think there's any obligation to print their response in the main text however. If you think their objections are valid, you should adjust your conclusions; if they are specious, let them duke it out in the comment section. You could include them inline, but I wouldn't feel obliged to quote verbatim. Something like this would seem perfectly responsible to me:
Organisation X said they were going to research ways to prevent famines using new crop varieties, but seem to lack scientific expertise. In an email they disputed this, pointing to their head of research, Dr Wesley Stadtler, but all his publications are in low quality journals and unrelated fields.
This allows readers to see the other POV, assuming you summarise it fairly, without giving them excessive space on the page or the last word.
I agree that any organisation that is soliciting funds or similar from the public is fair game. It's unclear to me to what extend this also applies to those which solicit money from a fund like the LTFF which is itself primarily dependant on soliciting money from the public.