Reportedly, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman is planning on challenging the constitutionality of the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules provision he stands accused of violating:
A candidate for a judicial office shall not knowingly or with reckless disregard for the statement's truth or falsity misrepresent the identity, qualifications, present position, or other fact concerning the candidate or an opponent. A candidate for judicial office should not knowingly make representations that, although true, are misleading, or knowingly make statements that are likely to confuse the public with respect to the proper role of judges and lawyers in the American adversary system.Emphases added.
This means Gableman will have to show that the above Rule (SCR 60.06(3)(c)) operates as an abridgment of free speech under the First Amendment, which is applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Gableman, despite having been narrowly elected nearly seven months ago, continues to speak through his campaign manager, Darrin Schmitz. Schmitz appears to claim that because each and every individual sentence in the contested advertisement is "truthful," so therefore is the overall communication conveyed by the ad.
Thus I suppose if I tell you that the moon is made of green cheese, it must be true because there is a moon, there is cheese, and there are things that are green, out of which other things can be made.
My question is, how many Gableman votes was the ad's alleged "truthfulness" responsible for. The panel may not reach that question, but it seems pretty much dispositive to me.
It certainly was intended to sway voters.