the courts or the Attorney General’s office finds consideration, the courts and the Attorney General’s office generally end their review. Courts and third-party lawyers are reluctant to wade into the thicket of determining whether the consideration is adequate or fair. Generally, where the consideration is an obvious sham, the New Mexico courts and the New Mexico Attorney General’s office have been reluctant to find that a contract violates the anti-donation clause. Unlike cases in which the Supreme Court of New Mexico has stricken transactions as violating the Anti-Donation Clause, this lawsuit does not involve an outright gift of money or property to a private entity with no exchange of adequate consideration. See Chronis v. State ex rel. Rodriguez, 100 N.M. at 348, 670 P.2d at 959 (<HOLDING>); State ex rel. Mechem v. Hannah, 63 N.M. at
holding that legislative diminishment of tax obligation constituted an unconstitutional subsidy to the liquor industry in violation of the antidonation clause holding that even though labeled a tax on conducting retail liquor business challenged statute was nevertheless a penalty designed to punish the violation of state liquor laws holding inter alia that a creditor may take a security interest in a licensees liquor license holding that a tax credit to liquor licensees against taxes owed to the state was an unconstitutional subsidy of the liquor industry holding place as used in statute defining liquor nuisance was not limited to a particular building but included entire area where illicit liquor business was conducted