The organization behind Question 3 said Thursday that their opponents made several missteps in their campaign.

"They ran a strange campaign," Carey Theil, the campaign manager of the Committee to Protect Dogs, said. "Rather than put a lot of money on TV, which they should have done, they put a third of money on TV, then they bought radio, then they bought print advertising. They never quite had enough punch behind any of it."

Question 3, which would prohibit dog racing in Massachusetts, passed on Tuesday by 12 percentage points, 56 percent to 44 percent, according to the Boston Globe.

Theil also responded to remarks earlier Thursday that his campaign outspent the opponents of the measure. Earlier Thursday, veteran Republican strategist Rob Gray told PolitickerMA.com that the group that opposed the measure could have been successful if it spent $1 million. It didn't, Gray said, choosing instead to spend only about a third of that.

Theil said the opponents of the measure benefitted from money that was funneled into their by the dog tracks in "in-kind" contributions. Those contributions, Theil said, were essentially the dog tracks paying for TV and other advertisements. When those contributions are added to the campaign's expenditures, the group spent approximately $646,000 on the campaign, according to its most recent report.

"We did we outspend them," Theil said, "but the spending was more or less in the same realm."

Theil's committee still outspent their opponent, doling out more than $721,000 during the campaign. The committee also received more than $210,000 in in-kind contributions but said those contributions were different from the in-kinds of the measure's opponents.

"The in-kind contributions to the No on 3 campaign were not the ordinary in-kind contributions you would normally see," Theil said.  In-kind contributions to his campaign, Theil said, were when other organizations dedicated staff time to the campaign.