The saga of a new political ad rule in Wisconsin continues after a federal judge declined to sign off on an agreement between the Government Accountability Board and several political interest groups Thursday.

U.S. District Court Judge William Conley refused to sign off on a settlement between the GAB and groups including the conservative Wisconsin Club for Growth and the liberal One Wisconsin Now on a settlement wherein the GAB agreed not to enforce the rule.

The GAB rule in question would require all groups to follow regular
campaign finance rules when running ads within 30 days of an election
when the ads appear to be supporting or opposing a candidate’s stances
on issues, his or her public record or personal character.

Conley said in his decision the best solution to the question of the ad rule would be for the GAB to repeal the rule itself, rather than for the courts to ban it or sign off on a settlement about it.

Conley questioned the reach of both the injunction issued by the Supreme Court and the proposed settlement.

“Contrary to the parties representation to this court, their proposed resolution of this case is neither ‘simple’, nor ‘expeditious’,” Conley said in his decision of the proposed settlement he refused to sign off on.

Conley also called the Supreme Court’s proposed injunction “sweeping in its scope and puzzling in its substance.”

The original rule expanded the definition of a political ad to include all ads with “no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate,” whether the ad specifically tells viewers to vote for or against a candidate, according to the GAB.

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

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is currently reviewing the rule after issuing an injunction halting its enforcement Aug. 13.

The GAB refused to comment on Conley’s decision.

Groups such as the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign have previously applauded the GAB ad rule as a step toward repealing the controversial Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which defines money as a constitutionally protected form of free speech.

The decision allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts from their private coffers on campaign donations and political advertising.