I think part of the problem with the U2 thing is (and I'm no huge defender of Bono) is that Bono is very charitable. Some other members of the band are not so charitable or even especially interested in it. Bono is actually very egalitarian and as a result he only has one vote in how they do things. They have had a completely democratic approach and share all money equally and make all business decisions equally. Now nobody knows but even if Bono voted against it and disagreed with it they could still end up doing it because that is the way the band was set up.
Paul McGuinness once said on this point that Bono would give you the shirt off his back but Larry Mullen Jnr still has his communion money to illustrate the difference between them.
But yes it is why there is a big difference in how the actions were perceived even if Rolling Stones actions and behaviour are in fact much worse than U2's.