(On bypass from the court of appeals.)

APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the Circuit Court for Dane County, Sarah B. O'Brien, Circuit Court Judge. Affirmed.

¶ 1. N. PATRICK CROOKS, J.

This case is before the court as a result of the parties' joint petition to bypass pursuant to Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.60 (1995-96). The issue presented is whether the circuit court properly dismissed the complaint of the Elections Board of the State of Wisconsin (the "Board") charging the respondents with various violations of the campaign finance laws contained in Wis. Stat. ch. 11 following the respondents' broadcast of several advertisements. The Board contends that respondents are subject to ch. 11 regulation because their ads had the "political purpose of expressly advocating" the defeat or re-election of the incumbent state senators and representatives named in the ads. We conclude that the respondents, when they broadcast the advertisements, lacked fair warning that the ads could qualify as express advocacy in Wisconsin under a context-based approach. The Board, in effect, engaged in retroactive rule-making in attempting to apply such an approach.

¶ 2. Since this violation of due process — fundamental fairness — is determinative of the issue of whether these respondents can be prosecuted for the ads involved, there is no need for us to decide whether the ads are express advocacy. We therefore affirm the circuit court's dismissal of the Board's complaint.

¶ 3. We also determine that the definition of the term express advocacy is not limited to the specific list of "magic words" such as "vote for" or "defeat" found in Buckley footnote 52. A context-based approach to defining express advocacy may present an attractive alternative, but we note that several courts have rejected such an approach. If there is to be a further attempt to fashion a rule governing express advocacy advertisements, leaving that task is appropriately left to the legislature or the Board, consistent with this opinion.

I.

¶ 4. The respondents in this action are four Wisconsin corporations. Respondent WMC Issues Mobilization Council, Inc., (IMC), is a non-stock, non-profit corporation which receives financial support from respondents ABC Corporation and XYZ Corporation. To protect their privacy, IMC has refused to name ABC and XYZ. Respondent Wisconsin Manufacturers Commerce, a non-profit corporation, also provides financial support to IMC.

¶ 5. The Board is the state agency responsible for the administration of the campaign finance laws in Wis. Stat. ch. 11 and other laws related to elections and campaigns. See Wis. Stat. §§ 5.05(1), 15.61. In the event of a ch. 11 violation involving a statewide election or the filing of a required report or statement, the Board may bring a civil forfeiture action under Wis. Stat. § 11.60. § 5.05(1)(c). The Board may seek injunctive or other relief to enforce laws governing elections and campaigns. § 5.05(1)(d). The Board also has the power to enact rules pursuant to Wis. Stat. ch. 227 to interpret and administer the election and campaign laws. See § 5.05(1)(f).

¶ 6. In late October, 1996, IMC produced advertisements referring to six incumbent state legislators who were hoping to be re-elected in the November 5, 1996, general election. Each ad described a legislator's vote on specific issues and encouraged viewers or listeners to call the legislator to express approval or disapproval of the legislator's position. The ads aired on television and/or radio stations in the relevant state senate and assembly districts.

¶ 7. The legislators featured by the ads filed administrative complaints with the Board against IMC, contending that the advertisements subjected IMC to regulation under Wis. Stat. ch. 11. When the Board did not immediately address their complaints, the legislators sought injunctive relief under Wis. Stat. § 11.66 in circuit courts around the state. On October 31, 1996, the Dane County Circuit Court ordered a temporary injunction restraining IMC from broadcasting its advertisements. The circuit courts involved in the related suits swiftly did the same. IMC filed an emergency petition for a supervisory writ with the court of appeals. The court of appeals granted the writ in part and denied it in part, leaving the injunctions in place.

¶ 8. On March 14, 1997, the Board issued its order regarding the legislators' administrative complaints. The Board found that IMC had engaged in express advocacy and ordered IMC to comply with the provisions of Wis. Stat. ch. 11 by April 15, 1997. Specifically, the Board ordered IMC to file a campaign registration statement and a campaign finance report detailing all contributions made or received, and all disbursements made or obligations incurred, during 1996.

¶ 9. IMC refused to comply with the Board's order. The Board responded by filing the present action in Dane County Circuit Court on June 26, 1997. In its complaint, the Board alleged that IMC's advertisements had the "political purpose of expressly advocating" defeat or re-election of the named legislators. Therefore, the Board asserted, the four respondents (collectively, "WMC") were subject to various regulations under the campaign finance laws. The Board alleged that WMC failed to comply with the March 14, 1997, order and had violated Wisconsin's campaign finance laws by: (1) failing to register in violation of Wis. Stat. § 11.05(1); (2) failing to file financial reports regarding contributions in violation of Wis. Stat. § 11.06(1)(a); (3) failing to file financial reports required by Wis. Stat. § 11.20(1) and (2); and (4) making contributions and/or disbursements for purposes unrelated to a referendum, in violation of Wis. Stat. § 11.38(1). The Board sought per diem civil forfeitures as provided in Wis. Stat. §§ 11.60 and 11.38(4), costs, and an injunction requiring WMC to comply with the applicable statutory provisions.

¶ 10. WMC moved to dismiss the Board's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On January 16, 1998, the Dane County Circuit Court, Judge Sarah B. O'Brien presiding, granted WMC's motion. In a 29-page decision, the court determined that the Board could adopt a definition of express advocacy other than the one set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) ( per curiam), as long as that definition met the requirements of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. According to the court, the standard for express advocacy urged by the Board was a case-by-case determination based on the five-factor test of Crawford v. Whittow, 123 Wis.2d 174, 183, 366 N.W.2d 155 (Ct. App. 1985), and could not fairly be applied to WMC because the Board had not previously published or formally adopted it. Further, the court reasoned, the Board's standard was unconstitutionally vague and was not sufficiently narrow to serve compelling governmental interests. Based on its conclusions, the court dismissed the Board's complaint with prejudice.

II.

¶ 11. We apply a de novo standard when reviewing a circuit court's dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim. Hermann v. Town of Delavan, 215 Wis.2d 370, 378, 572 N.W.2d 855 (1998); Watts v. Watts, 137 Wis.2d 506, 512, 405 N.W.2d 305 (1987). In our review, we must accept as true all facts in the complaint and all reasonable inferences which may be drawn from them. Watts, 137 Wis.2d at 512. See Hermann, 215 Wis.2d at 378. Dismissal is proper only when it is clear that the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any facts which could be proved. Hermann, 215 Wis.2d at 378; Watts, 137 Wis.2d at 512; Crawford, 123 Wis.2d at 178.

¶ 12. In its complaint, the Board alleges that WMC is subject to regulation because its ads had the "political purpose of expressly advocating the defeat" or re-election of the featured legislators. Under Wis. Stat. § 11.01(16)(a)1, "[t]he making of a communication which expressly advocates the election, defeat, recall or retention of a clearly identified candidate . . ." is an act for "political purposes." A payment made for "political purposes" may qualify as a "contribution" under § 11.01(6)(a)1 or a "disbursement" under § 11.01(7)(a)1. It is the respondents' contributions and/or disbursements that the Board asserts triggered the sections of ch. 11 allegedly violated by WMC. Accordingly, whether the Board's complaint has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted would seem to depend upon whether WMC's advertisements constitute express advocacy as provided in § 11.01(16)(a)1.

¶ 13. Statutory interpretation is a question of law which this court reviews de novo, although we are benefited in this case by the analysis of the circuit court. See Peters v. Menard, Inc., 224 Wis.2d 174, 184, 589 N.W.2d 395 (1999); Forest County v. Goode, 219 Wis.2d 655, 663, 579 N.W.2d 715 (1998). The main goal of statutory interpretation is to determine the legislature's intent. Goode, 219 Wis.2d at 663; UFE Inc. v. LIRC, 201 Wis.2d 274, 281, 548 N.W.2d 57 (1996). Our first step is to examine the plain language of the statute. Peters, 224 Wis.2d at 184; Goode, 219 Wis.2d at 663. If the language is susceptible to only one meaning, we adopt that meaning and our analysis ends. Goode, 219 Wis.2d at 663; UFE, 201 Wis.2d at 281-82. If, on the other hand, reasonable minds could interpret the statutory language to mean more than one thing, the statute is ambiguous and we look to other sources to decipher the legislature's intended meaning. Peters, 224 Wis.2d at 184-85.

¶ 14. Express advocacy is not defined in the Wisconsin Statutes. The meaning of the term has not been clarified in any published Wisconsin case, and the Board has not published a definition of express advocacy. We turn, therefore, to other sources for aid in interpreting the term.

¶ 15. The express advocacy language was added to Wis. Stat. ch. 11 after the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) ( per curiam). See § 27, ch. 328, Laws of 1979. In Buckley, the Court discussed the constitutionality of several provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 ("FECA"). Buckley, 424 U.S. at 6. The Court emphasized that protection of political speech lies at the heart of the First Amendment, stating, "Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution. The First Amendment affords the broadest protection to such political expression. . . ." Buckley, 424 U.S. at 14.

¶ 16. The Court explained in Buckley that the First Amendment right of association is closely related to the right of free speech. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 15. "[E]ffective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association." Id. (quoting NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 460 (1958)). The right to associate includes the right to band together for the purposes of advocating political ideas or beliefs. See id. at 15, 22. See also FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee, 470 U.S. 480, 494 (1985) [hereinafter NCPAC].

¶ 17. Based on these principles, the Court held in Buckley that it could avoid invalidating two provisions of the FECA, the expenditure limit in § 608(e)(1) and the disclosure requirements of § 434(e), on grounds of vagueness only if it limited their reach to funds paid for political communications that constituted express advocacy. Id. at 44, 80. More precisely, the Buckley court held that §§ 434(e) and 608(e)(1) could only be constitutionally applied to regulate payments "for communications that in express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for federal office." Id. at 44. In discussing § 608(e)(1), the Court observed:

[T]he distinction between discussion of issues and candidates and advocacy of election or defeat of candidates may often dissolve in practical application. Candidates, especially incumbents, are intimately tied to public issues involving legislative proposals and governmental actions.

Id. at 42. Therefore, to "clearly mark the boundary between permissible and impermissible speech," id. at 41, the scope of political activity regulated by § 608(e)(1) must be "limited to communications that include explicit words of advocacy of election or defeat of a candidate," the Court held. Id. at 43.

¶ 18. Later in the opinion, the Court determined that the § 434(e) disclosure requirement "shares the same potential for encompassing both issue discussion and advocacy of a political result" as the expenditure limit in § 608(e)(1). Id. at 79. The Court explained that "compelled disclosure, in itself, can seriously infringe on privacy of association and belief guaranteed by the First Amendment." Id. at 64. Accordingly, the Court stated:

To insure that the reach of § 434(e) is not impermissibly broad, we construe "expenditure" for purposes of that section in the same way we construed the terms of § 608(e) — to reach only funds used for communications that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate. This reading is directed precisely to that spending that is unambiguously related to the campaign of a particular federal candidate.

. . .

As narrowed, § 434(e), like § 608(e)(1), does not reach all partisan discussion for it only requires disclosure of these expenditures that expressly advocate a particular election result.

Id. at 80 (footnote omitted).

¶ 19. In footnotes, the Court elaborated on the meaning of its construction of §§ 434(e) and 608(e)(1) as applying only to speech which "expressly advocate[s] the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate." Id. In footnote 52, the Court stated that such a construction "would restrict the application of § 608(e)(1) to communications containing express words of advocacy of election or defeat, such as `vote for,' `elect,' `support,' `cast your ballot for,' `Smith for Congress,' `vote against,' `defeat,' `reject.'" Id. at 44 n. 52. Following its discussion of the express advocacy standard as applied to § 434(e), the Court included a footnote referring back to footnote 52. See id. at 80 n. 108.

¶ 20. Although the United States Supreme Court has cited Buckley in several cases, our research discloses only one in which the Court applied the Buckley express advocacy standard: FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238 (1986) [hereinafter MCFL]. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (MCFL) had distributed a newsletter entitled, "Special Edition," and stating in bold-faced type, "EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW TO VOTE PRO-LIFE," "VOTE PRO-LIFE," and "No pro-life candidate can win in November without your vote in September." MCFL, 479 U.S. at 243 (emphasis in original). Also printed on the newsletter were the names and photographs of 13 candidates in the upcoming state and federal elections which had voting records consistent with MCFL's position on certain issues. Id. at 243-44. The newsletter contained a coupon listing the names of the "pro-life" candidates, to be detached and taken to the polls by readers, as well as a disclaimer stating that "[t]his special election edition does not represent an endorsement of any particular candidate." Id. at 243.

¶ 21. The issue in MCFL was whether, by distributing the newsletter, MCFL had violated § 441b of the FECA, which prohibits corporations from using treasury funds for expenditures "in connection with" federal elections. Id. at 241. The Court determined that, under Buckley, § 441b would be overbroad unless the term "expenditure" in § 441b were construed as applying only to express advocacy. Id. at 248-49. Utilizing this narrowing construction, the Court held that MCFL was in violation of § 441b because its newsletter constituted express advocacy. Id. at 249-51. In reaching this holding, the Court interpreted Buckley as follows:

Buckley adopted the "express advocacy" requirement to distinguish discussion of issues and candidates from more pointed exhortations to vote for particular persons. We therefore concluded in that case that a finding of "express advocacy" depended upon the use of language such as "vote for," "elect," "support," etc., Buckley, supra, at 44, n. 52.

Id. at 249. The Court then applied the Buckley standard to MCFL's newsletter:

Just such an exhortation appears in the "Special Edition." The publication not only urges voters to vote for "pro-life" candidates, but also identifies and provides photographs of specific candidates fitting that description. The Edition cannot be regarded as a mere discussion of public issues that by their nature raise the names of certain politicians. Rather, it provides in effect an explicit directive: vote for these (named) candidates. The fact that this message is marginally less direct than "Vote for Smith" does not change its essential nature. The Edition goes beyond issue discussion to express electoral advocacy. The disclaimer of endorsement cannot negate this fact.

Id. The Court concluded that MCFL's newsletter constituted express advocacy within the purview of § 441b. Id. at 249-50.

¶ 22. As stated previously, Buckley and MCFL comprise the entire volume of cases in which the United States Supreme Court has applied the express advocacy standard. We do not read Buckley and MCFL as requiring that a communication contain any specific "magic words" in order to constitute express advocacy. The words listed in footnote 52 of Buckley are merely examples of words which undoubtedly constitute "express words of advocacy of election or defeat," as evidenced by the Court's use of the phrase "such as" immediately preceding the list of words. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 44 n. 52. Consistent with Buckley, when the Court summarized footnote 52 of Buckley in MCFL, it again introduced the words with the phrase "such as." MCFL, 479 U.S. at 249. The Court in MCFL also suggested that the list of words in Buckley's footnote 52 was exemplary, not exhaustive, when it stated, "The fact that this message [in the newsletter] is marginally less direct than "Vote for Smith" does not change its essential nature." Id. "Vote for" was one of the phrases used in footnote 52. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 44 n. 52.

¶ 23. Further, it would be absurd to hold that those particular "magic words" of advocacy which the Buckley Court chose to mention in footnote 52 qualify as express advocacy while other, equally explicit words of advocacy do not. We can think of no reason to adopt an approach which would regulate an ad which said, "Defeat Smith," but not an ad which said, "Unseat Smith." See Buckley, 424 U.S. at 44 n. 52. Consistent with the well-established rule that we should avoid absurd results when interpreting a statute, see Campenni v. Walrath, 180 Wis.2d 548, 560, 509 N.W.2d 725 (1994), we hold that no particular "magic words" are necessary for a communication to constitute express advocacy.

¶ 24. In our view, Buckley stands for the proposition that it is unconstitutional to place reporting or disclosure requirements on communications which do not "expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate." Buckley, 424 U.S. at 80. Any standard of express advocacy must be consistent with this principle in order to avoid invalidation on grounds of vagueness and/or overbreadth. See MCFL, 479 U.S. at 248-49; Buckley, 424 U.S. at 44, 80. We are satisfied that for a political communication or advertisement to constitute express advocacy under Buckley and MCFL, it must contain explicit language advocating the election or defeat of a candidate who is clearly identified. See MCFL, 479 U.S. at 249-50; Buckley, 424 U.S. at 43, 44 n. 52, 80 n. 108. The explicit terms used need not have been chosen from a specific list of "magic words."

¶ 25. As stated previously, there is no Wisconsin case, statute, or regulation clarifying the meaning of the term express advocacy as used in Wis. Stat. § 11.01(16)(a)1. Buckley and MCFL constitute the only authority which binds Wisconsin courts on the subject. It follows, then, that if WMC's advertisements contained explicit words "advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate," the ads would be express advocacy subject to ch. 11 regulation, pursuant to the rule of Buckley and MCFL.

¶ 26. However, the Board does not assert that WMC's advertisements include any "magic words." Likewise, the Board does not point to any specific words or phrases in the advertisements which might qualify as explicit words which advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate. To get around this, the Board urges us to find that WMC's advertisements are express advocacy based upon the context in which they were broadcast. The Board argues that we should evaluate communications on a case-by-case basis, labeling a communication express advocacy whenever its context suggests that it is "unambiguously related to the campaign of a particular . . . candidate." Buckley, 424 U.S. at 80. Among the factors the Board contends that we should consider are the proximity in time of the communication to an election, the underlying intent of the communication, the effect of the communication, the audience, and the proximity of the geographical area in which the communication is disseminated to the voting district of the featured candidate.

¶ 27. It may well be appropriate to consider context in determining whether a communication constitutes express advocacy. It should be remembered that Buckley developed its definition of express advocacy while interpreting a specific federal statute. In FEC v. Furgatch, 807 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 850 (1987), the Ninth Circuit adopted a broader definition of express advocacy when it held that context is relevant in determining whether a political communication is express advocacy. The Furgatch court took the following approach, which presents an attractive alternative:

We conclude that speech need not include any of the words listed in Buckley to be express advocacy under the Act, but it must, when read as a whole, and with limited reference to external events, be susceptible to no other reasonable interpretation but as an exhortation to vote for or against a specific candidate.

Furgatch, 807 F.2d at 864. The court explained that under this standard, the message of the speech must be "unmistakable and unambiguous, suggestive of only one plausible meaning," it must "present a clear plea for action," and it "must be clear what action is advocated." Id. Context remains an "ancillary" consideration, the court stated, one "peripheral to the words themselves." Id. at 863. The court specifically relied on the timing of an advertisement (within one week of the election) in concluding that the ad was express advocacy. Id. at 865.

¶ 28. It should be noted, however, that Furgatch makes no mention of the United States Supreme Court's decision in MCFL, even though MCFL preceded Furgatch by nearly one month. See FEC v. Christian Action Network, Inc., 110 F.3d 1049, 1053 n. 4 (4th Cir. 1997). It is also significant that at least two courts have held that an FEC regulation adopting the context-based rule of Furgatch is an invalid attempt to regulate issue advocacy. See Right to Life of Dutchess County, Inc. v. FEC, 6 F. Supp.2d 248, 249-50, 253-54 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); Maine Right to Life Comm. v. FEC, 914 F. Supp. 13 (D. Me. 1996), aff'd per curiam, 98 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 52 (1997). Other courts have rejected similar attempts to broaden the definition of express advocacy. See, e.g., Faucher v. FEC, 928 F.2d 468, 471-72 (1st Cir. 1991), cert. denied 502 U.S. 820 (1991); FEC v. Central Long Island Tax Reform Immediately Comm., 616 F.2d 45, 53 (2nd Cir. 1980) ( en banc); FEC v. Christian Action Network, 894 F. Supp. 946, 958 (W.D. Va. 1995), aff'd per curiam, 92 F.3d 1178 (4th Cir. 1996).

¶ 29. Regardless of whether it might be permissible to consider context in defining express advocacy, we conclude, for the reasons which follow, that WMC had insufficient warning before broadcasting its advertisements that a context-based standard could be used to determine that the ads were express advocacy which would subject WMC to regulation under the Wis. Stat. ch. 11 provisions at issue.

¶ 30. "Because we assume that [persons are] free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he [or she] may act accordingly." Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972). Such notice is a basic requirement of due process. Grayned, 408 U.S. at 108. When First Amendment interests are implicated by laws which may result in criminal penalties, imprecise standards "may not only `trap the innocent by not providing fair warning' or foster `arbitrary and discriminatory application' but also operate to inhibit protected expression by inducing `citizens to steer far wider of the unlawful zone . . . than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly marked.'" Buckley, 424 U.S. at 41 n. 48 (quoting Grayned, 408 U.S. at 108-109). See also Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360, 372 (1964); Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 526 (1958). "Because First Amendment freedoms need breathing space to survive, government may regulate in the area only with narrow specificity." Buckley, 424 U.S. at 41 n. 48 (quoting NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 433 (1963)).

¶ 31. The Board's attempt to apply a context-based standard to the ads involved in this case amounts to an after-the-fact effort to create a standard of express advocacy which is broader than the standard existing in Wisconsin when WMC ran its ads. Unlike the Board, the FEC has promulgated and published its interpretation of the statutory term express advocacy, which includes a context-based test, as an administrative rule. By creating and attempting to apply its new, context-oriented interpretation of the statutory term express advocacy, the Board has, in effect, engaged in retroactive rule-making. See Wis. Stat. §§ 227.01(13), 227.10(1); Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208-09 (1988) (stating, "Even where some substantial justification for retroactive rulemaking is presented, courts should be reluctant to find such authority absent an express statutory grant"). See also Schoolway Transp. Co. v. DMV, 72 Wis.2d 223, 236-37, 240 N.W.2d 403 (1976); Frankenthal v. Wisconsin R.E. Brokers' Bd., 3 Wis.2d 249, 253-54, 88 N.W.2d 352 (1958), on motion for reh'g, 3 Wis.2d 257a, 257b-257c, 89 N.W.2d 825 (1958). We agree with the circuit court that it would be "profoundly unfair to apply a previously unarticulated test, retroactively, to these defendants." Decision and Order at 25.

¶ 32. The United States Supreme Court has held that a deprivation of the due process right of fair warning can occur not only from vague statutory language, but also from unforeseeable and retroactive interpretation of that statutory language. See Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347, 352, 355 (1964). The Court indicated that a due process violation resulting from retroactive interpretation of statutory language is actually worse than a vague statute because it "lulls the potential defendant into a false sense of security, giving him no reason even to suspect" that he might be subject to the statutory prohibition. Id. at 352.

¶ 33. Further, we decline the Board's invitation to craft a new standard of express advocacy for the state of Wisconsin. The creation of such a standard is properly the role of the legislature and the Board, not this court. See Wagner Mobil, Inc. v. City of Madison, 190 Wis.2d 585, 594 n. 4, 527 N.W.2d 301 (1995) (recognizing the well-established principle that the Wisconsin Constitution requires "the separation of the legislative and judicial powers.") See also Wis. Stat. § 5.05(1)(f). The level of regulation desirable in this area depends upon public policy considerations more appropriately explored in a forum other than this court. We have described our role in areas "peppered with political perceptions and emotionally laden views," as one restricted to interpreting the scope of constitutional requirements. Kukor v. Grover, 148 Wis.2d 469, 504-505, 436 N.W.2d 568 (1989).

¶ 34. We conclude that under the circumstances of this case, WMC, when it broadcast its advertisements, had insufficient warning that the ads could qualify as express advocacy under Wisconsin's campaign finance law. The Board's after-the-fact attempt to apply a context-oriented standard of express advocacy must fail, since, in effect, it was an unfair attempt at retroactive rule-making, without any express statutory grant of authority, and thus, a violation of due process. Because this conclusion prevents the Board from prevailing in this action under any factual conditions, we affirm the circuit court's dismissal of the Board's complaint.

III.

¶ 35. Based on our conclusion that the Board may not regulate WMC under the campaign finance laws in ch. 11 on the basis of the retrospective application of a context-based standard of express advocacy, we affirm the circuit court's dismissal of the Board's complaint. We stress that this holding places no restraints on the ability of the legislature and the Board to define further a constitutional standard of express advocacy to be prospectively applied. We encourage them to do so, as we are well aware of the types of compelling state interests which may justify some very limited restrictions on First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. See Gard v. State Elections Bd., 156 Wis.2d 28, 36, 51-52, 65, 456 N.W.2d 809 (1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 982 (1990) (upholding a contribution limit which was found by this court to be narrowly tailored to serve the compelling state interest in preventing actual or apparent corruption of the political process). See also Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652, 658-60 (1990); NCPAC, 470 U.S. at 496-97; FEC v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U.S. 197, 207-208 (1982); First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 788-89 (1978). Consistent with this opinion, we note that any definition of express advocacy must comport with the requirements of Buckley and MCFL and may encompass more than the specific list of "magic words" in Buckley footnote 52, but must, however, be "limited to communications that include explicit words of advocacy of election or defeat of a candidate." By the Court. — The judgment and order of the circuit court is affirmed.

¶ 36. JON P. WILCOX, J., did not participate.