single-subject requirements relative to ation, 53 Cal.3d 245, 279 Cal.Rptr. 325, 806 P.2d 1360 (1991) (upholding, against a single-subject challenge, a proposition generating tobacco tax revenue and distributing it, inter alia, to general healthcare for indigents and improvement of state parks and wildlife habitat). But see State ex rel., Jensen v. Kelly, 65 S.D. 345, 274 N.W. 319 (1937) (taking a narrower view of germaneness analogous to the reasoning of Powell). 12 . For purposes of Article III, Section 11 analysis, the single subject in focus is obviously centered on the subject matter of the appropriation. In other words, the source nexus is not relevant in the Article III, Section 11 context. Cf. Pennsylvania AFL-CIO v. Commonwealth, 683 A.2d 691, 695 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996) (<HOLDING>). 13 . We recognize that there is a fairly wide
recognizing this as the general rule holding that the statute as applied violates the commerce clause holding that it is not holding that validity of regulations will be sustained as long as  reasonably related to the purposes of the enabling legislation  recognizing that courts have traditionally applied a substantially more expansive reading of the single subject clause outside the arena of general appropriations as the purpose of substantive legislation is not constitutionally defined as it is relative to appropriations