Governing:

A ballot measure aimed at tightening ethics laws and changing term limits in Arkansas bucked expectations and passed with 53 percent of the vote. The measure, officially called Issue 3, bans lobbyist gifts to state officials, prohibits direct corporate and union contributions to candidates and lengthens the time period before former lawmakers can become lobbyists (from one to two years).

Those anti-lobbying and campaign finance reforms appeared to be headed for defeat because they were linked to an unpopular provision that sought to extend term limits for state lawmakers. Polling by Talk Business Research and Hendrix College showed that most likely voters supported the ethics reforms, but opposed a package that also included term-limit extensions.

As of now, the ban on direct corporate and labor union contributions remains constitutional, though opponents have continued to try to get the Supreme Court interested in revisiting the question. (Citizens United involves corporate spending indepenedent of candidates.)

Ken Vogel:

Embracing the irony of setting up a super PAC that would spend big money in order to fight super PACs and other groups that spend big money, Harvard professor Larry Lessig and GOP strategist Mark McKinnon went all-in on the idea voters would kick megadonors to the curb.

Tuesday, voters shrugged and cast their ballots for business as usual, leaving Mayday and Lessig — who emerged as its public personae — facing questions about the disconnect between its bold predictions and results….

Lessig did not respond to multiple phone calls from POLITICO in the aftermath of Tuesday’s election. That’s a marked change from earlier, when he and his allies assiduously courted media coverage – to great effect.

But Tom Steyer tells Peter Overby he will be back in 2016.

Must-read Nick Confessore NYT:

Over the last year and a half, the conservative outside groups retooled and revamped, borrowing lessons about how to exploit voter data, opposition research and advertising learned from their less moneyed but more effective Democratic counterparts during 2012.

As federal courts opened new avenues of influence for the wealthy and lenient enforcement effectively neutered what few legal and regulatory restraints remain on big-money politics, they took advantage of every available tool. To shield donors from scrutiny, they moved most of their spending through nonprofit groups not subject to federal disclosure requirements. To be more nimble, they created subsidiaries devoted to specific races. They begged donors for money, overcame internal rivalries that lingered through Election Day, and ultimately deployed at least $300 million in a favorable political environment, helping drive the 2014 midterms to become the costliest in history.

All told, the political network overseen by the conservative billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch appeared to be the largest overall source of outside television spending on behalf of Republicans. Seven Koch-backed groups spent roughly $77 million on television advertising in the midterm elections, officials said, including eleven Senate races. Koch groups appeared to be the biggest outside spenders on television in Arkansas, Iowa and Louisiana, airing a combined $25 million in ads. Republican candidates won Arkansas and Iowa, and the party’s candidate is favored to win a coming runoff in Louisiana.

American Crossroads and its affiliated nonprofit group spent $50 million on political advertising, and at least $20 million more on so-called issue ads, a spokesman said. The groups dominated outside spending in Alaska, where the Crossroads groups put about $7 million into television advertising, and Colorado, fielding close to $14 million, which helped crush Senator Mark Udall, the Democratic incumbent who was once favored to win.

All told, Republican outside groups spent about $205 million on television advertising, according to a Democrat tracking media purchases, while Democratic groups spent $132 million.

See this press release.

Of all the candidates they backed, only Walter Jones (R-NC) and Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) succeeded. And I don’t know that MayDay money mattered in those races. Would like to learn more.

A nugget in this must-read WaPo report, Battle for the Senate: How the GOP woke up while Democrats were feeling the drag:

Despite his deep aversion to super PACs, Obama in early 2012 reluctantly sanctioned Priorities USA, a super PAC set up to back his reelection, and allowed White House and campaign officials to appear at the group’s fundraisers. But Reid and Senate Democrats thought the president was not giving the same level of support for Senate Majority PAC.

Lawyers negotiated for months over legal minutia, with Obama’s counselors insisting that the president appear only as a guest and do no donor solicitation, which would have violated federal law. After Obama appeared at two Senate Majority PAC events — June 17 in New York and July 22 in Seattle — the president’s lawyers demanded that no staffer follow up with the donors for at least seven days.

These contingencies were so strict, Krone argued, that it would be fruitless to involve the president at all. “They were setting the rules as they saw fit,” he said. “For some reason, they hid behind a lot of legal issues.”

The White House maintains that it was prudent in protecting the presidency and avoid any appearances of a quid pro quo. The senior White House official voiced displeasure with Senate Majority PAC’s methods: “They were calling Obama donors who we had long relationships with and making asks that annoyed the donors.”