always said' that bills must have both features, this case turns on the second prong .... Majority Op. ¶8 (bold emphasis added). However, there is no unbroken line of decisions as claimed by the majority accounting for this constitutional distinction between measures levying new taxes and measures removing exemptions. The quote from the majority cites to sixteén cases, leading the reader to believe that all sixteen cases support this “unbroken line of decisions” where we have made that distinction. Id. n. 21. In this long line of cases, only one relied on the exemption for a part of its holding. Leveridge, 1956 OK 77, ¶¶ 0, 13, 294 P.2d at 809, 812, Only one more of the cited cases even mentioned exemptions. Cornelius v. State ex rel Cruce, 1914 OK 222, ¶ 9, 40 Okla. 733, 140 P. 1187 (<HOLDING>). None of the other fourteen cases cited
holding that the segregation of funds was not a prerequisite to the establishment of a statutory trust under the internal revenue code holding that the essential purpose of use tax is the recoupment of lost sales tax revenue holding that it is apparent that this act is not a revenue bill within the contemplation of said section of the constitution fpr the reason that the revenue to be derived therefrom is merely an incident to the main object of the bill and that its general purpose was not that of raising revenue id  5 holding that a company that derived revenue from leasing its property was in business for purposes for the coal act holding that revenue rule did not bar prosecution of a money laundering scheme to defraud the canadian government of tax revenue