Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman was accused Tuesday of judicial misconduct for an advertisement his campaign ran in March against opponent Justice Louis Butler.

The Wisconsin Judicial Commission of the Wisconsin Supreme Court filed the complaint, saying they found probable cause that Gableman violated the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct while he was a Burnett County circuit court judge running for his current position.

In the television ad released March 14, Gableman’s campaign accused Butler of “[working] to put criminals on the street, like Reuben Lee Mitchell who raped an 11-year-old girl with learning disabilities. Butler found a loophole. Mitchell went on to molest another child.”

While the purpose of the ad was to compare and contrast the background, qualification and experience of the two judges, it ended up implying Butler enabled or resulted in Mitchell’s release and his subsequent charge of another criminal molestation, according to the commission.

According to the complaint, Gableman personally reviewed and approved the ad before it was aired, even though the statements in the ad are entirely false.

“Louis Butler did not cause, facilitate or enable Mitchell’s release from prison and had no responsibility for or connection with Mitchell’s subsequent commission of a crime,” the commission said in the complaint.

The complaint said Gableman “willfully” violated the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct, which states that a candidate for judicial office cannot knowingly or recklessly misrepresent the identity, qualifications, present position or other facts concerning the opposing candidate.

“The misrepresentation was made knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth by Judge Gableman,” the commission said. “The publication of the advertisement therefore constituted a willful violation by Judge Gableman of Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct.”

The commission notified Gableman on April 30 that there was an ongoing investigation of the allegations of possible misconduct, and on July 15 he was again notified of the official complaint that was to be filed.

Gableman responded to the allegations on Aug. 14 with a written statement and by appearing in person with counsel before the commission on Aug. 21.

Gableman’s campaign argued the commission’s complaint has no merit.

“The commission has intentionally disregarded the First Amendment,” the campaign said in a statement. “No candidate for office sacrifices his right to freedom of speech.”

According to the campaign, the commission alleges the ad contains false information on the basis of inference and implication, which they say is an incorrect interpretation of First Amendment law.

They also claim the commission is trying to advance an agenda that “disregards Justice Gableman’s Constitutional rights.”

“We’re confident that in the end actual judges will apply the law and the matter will be dismissed,” the campaign said.