Was The Democratic Campaign Against The Koch Influence Effective?

The Democratic Party spent a lot of campaign money on ads attacking the billionaires in the Koch family who spent millions supporting Republican candidates.  This article evaluates the effectiveness of that strategy.  Some say that it did not work, and others say that it was not used enough.  In some states it worked where the Koch money was portrayed as "out of state influence" instead of largess from billionaires.  That worked in New Hampshire where the Republican candidate for the Senate, who migrated from Massachusetts to New Hampshire to run for the Senate,  was described as an out of state candidate.  It was not universally effective because the Democratic candidates were also supported by very wealthy individuals.  The public believes that both parties are influenced by the super rich.  If you raise this issue with conservatives they will quickly refer to George Soros and his billions as the Democratic counter example.  Neither party can raise the funds that are required in political campaigns, which increase every year, without support from wealthy individuals.  The constantly rising cost of running political campaigns prices ordinary people out of the market.  The pricing system, after all, is a rationing system.  Most people can't afford a Mercedes and they can't afford to fund political campaigns that become more costly every year.  The only real solution is for government to limit campaign spending.  The GOP would not support the required legislation, and the conservatives in the Supreme Court declared that the intent of our founding fathers, who had the difficult task of inventing a democracy, believed that political advertising is a form of free speech that is granted in the Bill Of Rights.