welfare assistance program as exists in the case at bar. This Court has stated that while the effect of Section 109 must be “ascertained from the plain meaning of the words and terms used within it,” the Court should look to “the evils to be avoided or cured, and thereby arrive at the reasonable meaning.” Id. at 694 (quoting Ex parte Dennis, 334 So.2d 369, 373 (Miss.1976); Trahan v. State Highway Comm’n, 169 Miss. 732, 749, 151 So. 178, 182 (1933)). Though Section 109 sweeps broadly, this Court has acknowledged that there is an “edge to [its] target.” Frazier, 504 So.2d at 695 (citing Cassibry, 404 So.2d at 1368). It is not required that one be a party to the contract in question to have an interest in the contract that violates Section 109. See, e.g., Cassibry, 404 So.2d at 1365-67 (<HOLDING>). ¶ 26. Applying the factors set forth in
holding that state senator who was attorney for party to contract with state was in violation of  109 holding that a state agency created under state law was a state actor holding that person who is not party to contract does not have standing to challenge contract holding that for a suit to be brought in the venue in which the contract was to be performed the contract must expressly state where the performance of the contract was to occur recognizing that even entry into contract with citizen of state does not necessarily subject party to jurisdiction in state