The Wisconsin Supreme Court called a temporary halt to a new political advertising rule last month in a move confirming an agreement already reached by the state’s Government Accountability Board.

The injunction was issued following a 4-3 decision, with multiple conservative special interest groups teaming up to submit the request to halt the new law.

Specifically, the decision applies to a portion of the rule that would require all groups to submit to campaign finance rules for ads running within 30 days of an election with language either supporting or condemning a candidate’s stances on issues, public record or personal character.

Groups from across the political spectrum have claimed this portion of the law impedes their right to free speech.

Scot Ross, executive director for One Wisconsin Now, said in a statement that the GAB does not have the authority to control issue advocacy messages under the state’s campaign finance laws.

“Individuals and organizations need to be free to comment on public policy and the records of public officials, regardless of the time of year,” Ross said. “That is not just our long-held position; it is the U.S. Supreme Court’s long-held position, applying the First Amendment.

“The GAB had already reached an agreement to not enforce the new rule with One Wisconsin Now and the Wisconsin Club for Growth in one of several federal lawsuits opposing the new regulation.

A federal judge refused to sign off on the agreement, but the matter was then settled out of court.

The Supreme Court injunction makes the agreement absolute until a final decision on the matter is reached.

While the groups involved may tout the injunction as a victory, Reid Magney, spokesperson for the GAB, pointed out the ruling represents a temporary halt in enforcement of one sentence of the rule, not a reversal of the rule itself.

“In the first lawsuit when we proposed the resolution, the plaintiffs said, ‘We won’. Everybody else said because they’re declaring victory, they basically won,” Magney said. “[The GAB] issued a statement but we didn’t claim victory.”

Wisconsin Club for Growth and One Wisconsin Now originally teamed up to challenge the rule in federal court, an unusual move for two groups that usually find themselves on opposite sides of the political ring on nearly all issues.

Following the first settlement, however, different special interest groups took up the cause and filed separate lawsuits against the GAB.

The GAB originally referred to the rule as a “common-sense test” to determine whether an ad was political in nature and should therefore fall under the same campaign finance laws as all other political advertising.

The rule expanded the definition of a political ad to include all advertising with “no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate,” regardless of if the words “vote for” or “vote against” are used.

The GAB first approved the rule in March and it became effective Aug. 1 after going through legislative committee.