[6][7][8][9][10] Opponents argued that Proposition 39 is simply a tax increase, and it will make out-of-state companies less likely to do business in California.

[6][16] The primary financial backer of Proposition 39 was Thomas Steyer, who also played a lead role in designing the initiative.

[19] The three board members include: Gary Kremen, the founder of Match.Com also a clean technology engineer, entrepreneur and inventor; Erik Emblem, executive administrator and chief operating officer of the Western States Council-Sheet Metal Workers in Sacramento; and Dana Cuff, professor of Architecture and Urban Planning at the University of California, Los Angeles.

[20][21][22] A company with ample sales but no physical presence in the state significantly reduces its tax burden when choosing the three-factor method.

[7][15] In 2010, Steyer co-chaired the successful effort to beat Proposition 23, a ballot initiative to overturn California's climate change laws.

[25] The League of Conservative Voters has contributed $25,000 to the campaign, while the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers PAC has added $5,000.

[5][8] The extra tax revenue generated by AB 1500 would have reduced tuition costs for state university students by up to two-thirds for families making less than $150,000 per year.

[28][29] In 2011, Genentech executive Andrea Jackson explained that her company located a new facility in Oregon to take advantage of the three-factor method.

[20] A recent study by the independent research firm Beacon Economics claims that Proposition 39 could limit liability incentives for out-of-state businesses.

[37] As of October 1, 2012, General Motors, International Paper, Kimberly Clark, Chrysler and Procter & Gamble will not oppose Proposition 39 any further.

[64] The Legislature directed a smaller portion of revenues to an energy conservation revolving loan fund, and energy-related workforce development for disadvantaged youth and veterans.

[63] The California Clean Energy Jobs Act Citizens Oversight Board is the entity tasked with overseeing the implementation of Proposition 39.

[65] Many have criticized the implementation of Proposition 39 for its slow start,[66] but the California Energy Commission claims the slowness is due to a variety of reasons, including the necessary legislative and regulatory processes to get the program running, and the lack of capacity at under resourced K-12 schools to apply for funding and implement projects.