This is and should be a judicial responsibility - other than in Maryland, apparently. Maryland courts further weaken the public-purpose doctrine in one other important way. The implication of such a rule is that the governing body can justify giving or loaning money to anyone as long as it can point to a public benefit, any public benefit. The usual spiel the public hears from government is that an expenditure for a sports stadium or a tax break for a corporation is for a public purpose because the public receives the benefit of additional jobs. This is just what Topeka warned against.
Any action can lead to some benefit for persons other than the direct beneficiary.
Thus, the public-purpose doctrine is now used by the courts as a way to avoid the prohibition clearly set forth in article III, section 34 of the Maryland constitution. This certainly was not the original consideration behind the public-purpose doctrine. Finally, it should of course be noted that the entire responsibility for the outrageous subsidies extended by public entities to private corporations does not rest solely with irresponsible court rulings. A large share of the burden must be borne by equally irresponsible elected legislative and executive officials. Nonetheless, the final responsibility must rest with the courts, for it is they that are the arbiters of constitutionality, not legislators.