Proposition 23, a ballot measure that would have suspended the state\u2019s climate protection law, AB 32, until California\u2019s unemployment rate fell to at least 5.5 percent, garnered about 40 percent of the vote.. Another initiative, Proposition 26, won--53 percent to 47 percent. Proposition 26 expands the definition of a state tax and requires that some state and local taxes and fees be approved by a two-thirds vote of the state Legislature or local voters, rather than the current majority vote. Language in the measure says such fees would include \u201cthose that address adverse impacts on society or environment caused by the fee-payers business,\u201d such as the clean-up of an oil spill or other major industrial accident. The \u201cYes on 26\u201d campaign raised about $14 million, compared to about $3 million raised for the campaign against the initiative. Major contributors to the effort to pass the measure included the California Chamber of Commerce, Chevron, Philip Morris USA, and ConocoPhillips. The measure is expected to shift the costs of environmental damages \u201ccaused by companies from those responsible to taxpayers and create another $1 billion hole in the state budget. This was a short sighted measure, but this vote will not stop California\u2019s path-breaking climate program,\u201d said Ann Notthoff, Natural Resources Defense Counsel California advocate. Proposition 23, was backed by about $10 million primarily from Tesoro and Valero Energy. The anti-23 campaign gathered over $28 million in contributions. Among those who contributed to the anti-Proposition 23 effort were Pacific Gas & Electric, Sempra Energy, and the American Wind Energy Association, all of which have sizable investments in \u201cclean\u201d energy technology in California. Mostly, however, it was clean energy investors who funded the No on 23 campaign.