Campaigns for the Wisconsin Supreme Court will change no matter how a state judicial commission's complaint against Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman is resolved, court observers said.

A ruling against Gableman could even have national repercussions, as it would be the first time any state supreme court justice is disciplined for campaign speech, experts said.

"If the court finds the complaint is valid, it would certainly put judicial candidates on notice to be careful with their ads," said Janine Geske, a former Supreme Court justice and now a Marquette University law professor. "If the First Amendment is found to control here. . .we could have even scarier ads."

The complaint filed Tuesday argues Gableman violated judicial ethics rules by paying for a television ad that falsely suggested his opponent, former Justice Louis Butler, used a "loophole" to help a convicted child rapist get out of prison and go on "to molest another child." Gableman defeated Butler in April.

Charlie Hall, a spokesman for Justice at Stake Campaign, which supports judicial reforms to limit the influence of private money in campaigns, said acceptance of the commission's complaint would "send an important signal to future candidates (in other states) that there are lines of truth that need to be respected."

But Sean Parnell, president of the Center for Competitive Politics, which opposes laws and regulations governing donations to political candidates and campaign speech, said sanctioning Gableman would have a "chilling effect" across the country.

"Just the fact that this candidate has been put through this process, sends a signal that 'Hey, we didn't get this guy but you could be next,' " Parnell said.

The Gableman campaign ad suggested Butler played a role in freeing child rapist Reuben Lee Mitchell when he represented him as a public defender before the state Court of Appeals and Supreme Court from 1985 to 1988.

In its complaint, the Wisconsin Judicial Commission noted Butler argued that the circuit court made a mistake in admitting certain evidence against Mitchell, but the Supreme Court said the error didn't deny Mitchell a fair trial.

As a result, Mitchell remained in prison until he was released on parole in 1992. Three years later he was convicted of second-degree sexual assault of a child, the second victim to which the ad refers, the complaint said.

A judicial conduct panel will review the case before making a recommendation to the state Supreme Court, which will decide whether Gableman deserves discipline, ranging from public reprimand to removal. Gableman argued through a campaign spokesman that the ad is factual and protected by the Constitution.

Between 2003 and 2007, the judicial commission authorized 94 investigations into alleged misconduct by judges, although only two resulted in a complaint being filed with the state Supreme Court. The complaint against Gableman is the first filed by the commission dealing with a judicial candidate's campaign advertising, said James Alexander, the commission's executive director.

Nationally, it's unclear how many complaints have been filed against judges for campaign ads, according to Cindy Gray, director of the American Judicature Society's Center for Judicial Ethics, which tracks disciplinary action against judges.

But Gray said no state has disciplined a state supreme court justice for conduct related to campaign speech in the 18 years the center has tracked state judicial ethics violations.

The chief question before the judicial panel reviewing Gableman's case will be whether free speech principles supersede state judicial conduct rules.

Bert Kritzer, a former UW-Madison law professor who now teaches at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, said the U.S. Supreme Court has found that government can regulate political speech if there's a "compelling government interest."

"The idea of truthfulness and honesty among judges, is that a compelling enough interest to survive the standard? I don't know," said Kritzer, who studies judicial elections.

Howard Schweber, a UW-Madison professor of law and politics, said most candidates for office aren't restricted in what their ads can say. But judicial candidates are limited because of the state judicial ethics code, which sets a particularly low bar for misconduct.

"There's a low threshold to trigger discipline," Schweber said. "The standard is not factual accuracy."

The Gableman complaint is the second time the judicial commission has filed a complaint against a sitting justice. In September 2007, the commission filed a complaint against Justice Annette Ziegler for presiding over 11 cases involving West Bend Savings Bank when her husband, J.J. Ziegler, was on the board of directors.

The Supreme Court validated the complaint in May 2008 and publicly reprimanded Ziegler.

The court's next election will take place next spring as Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson seeks re-election. Jefferson County Circuit Judge Randy Koschnick intends to run for the seat, said Darrin Schmitz, a consultant for Gableman's campaign who is advising Koschnick.