ABSTRACT
Much of the scholarship that emerged was either in response to campaigns to diminish benefits and to increase government supervision of foundations in particular or to examine various threats to the most significant benefits. Significant work went into attempts to rationalize the standards for federal tax exemption and to understand the centerpiece of the law of tax exemptions and charitable deductions. The discretionary model of supervision worked repressively, capriciously, and with considerable cultural bias. A group that loses the largesse available to it as a nonprofit corporation should still be capable of organizing under one or more other corporate forms—general incorporation laws, limited liability corporation laws, partnership laws, or other laws for purposes related to free expression and advocacy. Ironically, newer evaluations of judicial discretion encouraged judges to assume more and not less latitude in decision-making.
