shareholders might be in a better position to hold managers accountable than donors to a non-profit are
That was a comparative statement. You're right, it may be difficult for shareholders to sue the management even if they make inefficient or even self-serving decisions. But lawsuits are not the only means by which people can hold other people accountable. Shareholders have the right to fire the management, in addition to the right to withhold further investment. Donors to charities only have the latter right.
So I'm only disagreeing with your claim #2 that charities are more accountable than these new types of corporations. Too many charities are run in an unaccountable way because the directors are accountable to nobody but themselves.
> But to whom? ... [snip] ... you're introducing a layer of politics into the board elections.
Politics happens everywhere, including for-profit corporations and non-profit charities. There's no escaping it.
That was a comparative statement. You're right, it may be difficult for shareholders to sue the management even if they make inefficient or even self-serving decisions. But lawsuits are not the only means by which people can hold other people accountable. Shareholders have the right to fire the management, in addition to the right to withhold further investment. Donors to charities only have the latter right.
So I'm only disagreeing with your claim #2 that charities are more accountable than these new types of corporations. Too many charities are run in an unaccountable way because the directors are accountable to nobody but themselves.
> But to whom? ... [snip] ... you're introducing a layer of politics into the board elections.
Politics happens everywhere, including for-profit corporations and non-profit charities. There's no escaping it.