THEREFORE, THE FIRST HURDLE IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER PROVIDING FUNDS FOR THE PROGRAM IS A PUBLIC PURPOSE. IN WAY V. GRAND LAKE ASSOCIATION INC., 635 P.2D 1010 (OKLA. 1981), THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT HAD OCCASION TO ANALYZE THE TERM "PUBLIC PURPOSE":
"THE TERM "PUBLIC PURPOSE" AS USED IN ARTICLE X, SECTION 14 IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED IN A NARROW AND RESTRICTED SENSE. PAWNEE COUNTY EXCISE BOARD V.KERN, 187 OKL. 110, 101 P.2D 614 SUPRA. IN 51 AM JUR P.378 326, IT IS STATED THAT THE TERM "PUBLIC PURPOSE" AS USED IN CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS THAT TAXES SHALL BE LEVIED FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES ONLY, IS SYNONYMOUS WITH "GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSES", AND MEANS A PURPOSE AFFECTING THE INHABITANTS OF THE STATE OR TAXING DISTRICT AS A COMMUNITY, AND NOT MERELY AS INDIVIDUALS(.)"
ARTICLE X, SECTION 17 OF THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION PROVIDES:
"THE LEGISLATURE SHALL NOT AUTHORIZE ANY COUNTY OR SUBDIVISION THEREOF, CITY, TOWN, OR INCORPORATED DISTRICT, TO BECOME A STOCKHOLDER IN ANY COMPANY, ASSOCIATION, OR CORPORATION, OR TO OBTAIN OR APPROPRIATE MONEY FOR, OR LEVY ANY TAX FOR, OR TO LOAN ITS CREDIT TO ANY CORPORATION, ASSOCIATION, OR INDIVIDUAL."
IN WAY, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT CERTAIN STATE LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATIONS TO PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS DID NOT VIOLATE THE PROVISIONS OF OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE X, SECTION 15 FOR THE REASON THAT THE APPROPRIATIONS WERE FOR A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSE AND BECAUSE THE STATE RETAINED ULTIMATE CONTROL OVER THE EXPENDITURE OF THE FUNDS INVOLVED. THE ARTICLE X, SECTION 15 PROHIBITIONS ON STATE SPENDING ARE VIRTUALLY THE SAME AS THOSE CONTAINED IN ARTICLE X, SECTION 17 REGARDING EXPENDITURES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT. IN WAY, PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS WERE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT DETAILED BUDGETS AND BE AUDITED TO INSURE THAT STATE FUNDS WERE BEING SPENT ON ACTIVITIES APPROVED BY THE STATE AGENCY. THE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED AT PAGE 1015:
"UNDER THE LEGISLATION HERE UNDER CONSIDERATION, DETAILED CONDITIONS AND GOVERNMENTAL SAFEGUARDS AND CONTROLS ARE LEGISLATIVELY MANDATED AS CONDITIONS FOR THE PARTICIPATION BY THE DEFENDANT IN THE APPROPRIATION."
THE ABOVE REFERENCED SAFEGUARDS AND CONTROLS WERE FOUND BY THE COURT TO DISTINGUISH WAY FROM VETTE V. CHILDERS, 228 P.145 (OKLA.1924) AND VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS V. CHILDERS, 171 P.2D 618 (OKLA.1946). IN VETTE, THE STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE WAS AUTHORIZED TO INVEST FUNDS IN MORTGAGE BONDS ON WAREHOUSES OWNED BY FARMER COOPERATIVES. THE COURT FOUND THAT THE INDIVIDUALS TO WHOM THE FUNDS WERE TO BE LOANED WERE THE DIRECT BENEFICIARIES OF THE ACT AND THAT ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT WAS INDIRECT. THE COURT OBSERVED AT PAGE 148:
"THE APPROPRIATION PROVIDED IN 18 OF THE ACT UNDER CONSIDERATION IS NOT FOR PURPOSES OF REGULATION AND CONTROL OF THE ENTERPRISE, BUT IS TO ASSIST IN ESTABLISHING A SYSTEM OF WAREHOUSES TO BE OWNED, OPERATED, AND CONTROLLED BY ASSOCIATIONS OF INDIVIDUALS. WHILE THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM OF WAREHOUSES MIGHT ULTIMATELY RESULT IN A BENEFIT TO THE ENTIRE FARMING CLASS OF THE STATE, AND BY REASON OF THE ENCOURAGEMENT GIVEN TO THIS INDUSTRY MIGHT RESULT IN A GENERAL BENEFIT TO THE ENTIRE PUBLIC, THE DIRECT