The Wisconsin Reporter reports:

A federal judge on Friday effectively pulled the life support plug on a politically charged John Doe investigation into dozens of conservative groups, and took the rare step of ordering the Government Accountability Board to post his decision on its website.

U.S. District Court Judge Charles N. Clevert Jr.’s final declaratory judgment and permanent injunction in Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Barland doesn’t directly deal with the John Doe probe Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm launched in September 2012, with the assistance of the GAB. But in those investigations the GAB and prosecutors operated on an exotic interpretation of state campaign law that critics say violates the First Amendment. Two previous judges – and now Clevert – have declared their interpretation unconstitutional.

Clevert went farther than previous judges, ordering the Government Accountability Board to “immediately and conspicuously post, on the homepage of GAB’s website valid hyperlinks” his final judgment and an appeals court ruling on which it is based.

The order requires GAB to keep the ruling on its website through the next two election cycles, including the next governor’s election. GAB has in the past failed to follow court judgments regarding the posting of information.

“Nothing like making GAB publicize how abusive it is,” said an attorney with knowledge of the case, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“The final judgment confirms that John Doe never had a legal leg to stand on because speech on the issues is not regulated by Wisconsin law,” another legal expert with knowledge of the case told Wisconsin Reporter. “And as of today, John Chisholm and the Government Accountability Board are permanently enjoined from targeting citizens for speaking out on the issues.”

The source spoke on condition of anonymity due to his closeness to the case.

At every turn, Clevert, a federal judge for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, asserts Wisconsin campaign finance law and the GAB’s massaging of it are “unconstitutionally vague.”

That’s the same language the U.S. Appeals Court for the 7th Circuit used throughout its88-page ruling in May.

In short, Clevert said the GAB and prosecutors can no longer pursue investigations or prosecutions or civil enforcement of people using the overly broad laws that have long governed Wisconsin’s issue-advocacy groups.

Wisconsin Right to Life won on every major point, based on a comparison of thejointly proposed judgment and the final order:

• Gone is Wisconsin’s illegal corporate speech ban, the prohibition on political spending by corporations. Such bans were declared unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling that opened up previous restrictions on campaign finance.
• Gone is Wisconsin’s “unconstitutionally vague” “political purposes” section and its divining “purpose of influencing” elections clause, the portions of campaign finance law legal experts say the GAB twisted into their “legal theory” that drove the John Doe investigation.

Chisholm and John Doe special prosecutor Francis Schmitz, backed by the GAB, argued that the conservative groups may have illegally coordinated with Gov. Scott Walker’s campaign during Wisconsin’s bitter recall season of 2011 and 2012.

Despite the fact that “coordination” does not appear in Wisconsin’s campaign finance law, the prosecutors and the GAB held that “issue advocacy” (political communications supporting or attacking ideas but not candidates) is effectively “express advocacy” (advertisements that directly support or oppose a political candidate) if there is coordination between an interest group and a candidate (like Walker). Under that interpretation, the advocacy groups would have to file as political committees and would be subject to the burdens of campaign finance disclosures.

That reading of the law doesn’t appear to comport with Buckley v. Valeo, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1976 decision on campaign finance that limits restrictions to express advocacy or its “functional equivalent.”

“The court therefore grants declaratory judgment and permanently enjoins Defendants from administering or civilly enforcing Wisconsin’s statutory political-purposes definition and Wisconsin’s regulatory political-committee definition against any person, or criminally investigating or prosecuting (or referring for investigation or prosecution) any person under this law, in any way inconsistent” with court rulings on express advocacy, Clevert writes.

The GAB had argued that it would employ the “case-by-case, totality-of-the-circumstances analysis” once also endorsed by the Federal Election Commission in reviewing issue-advocacy cases.

Clevert’s ruling ends that approach in Wisconsin.

“That’s a common theme from the GAB: the more vague the definition, the more vague the terms, the more discretion GAB has to investigate,” the attorney with knowledge of the case said. “That’s why they issued those draconian subpoenas, and we are just supposed to trust them.” …

The judge’s ruling should be extremely helpful to conservatives challenging the John Doe investigation in a case now before the state Supreme Court, as well as an appeal by political activist Eric O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Club for Growth, none of these people engaged in anything remotely close to express advocacy,” the attorney said. “I’m saying four justices on the (state) Supreme Court should be able to figure out in three minutes that there is no there, there.”