> Another reform I would make would be around independent governance and removing donor control of charities to reduce the number of sham Rich Guy foundations.

This one is tough. I mean, look at the Clinton Foundation. One reason to believe that $1 there is more effective than somewhere else is _because_ the Clinton’s are closely involved.

Of course, you get massive donations there because people want to influence the Clintons and/or _through_ the Clintons. Would those people / states donate otherwise? Would they donate to _better_ organizations? Maybe! Maybe not!

* Also I’m not saying the Clinton Foundation is more/less effective. You’re almost certainly better donating to GiveDirectly, but it’s not on its face ridiculous to think that they, specifically, could effect a _different_ type of change than others would have access to/influence over.