$1:
having absolutely no probable cause to file
Don't exaggerate. What Walker did is not disputed by either side - he coordinated the funding and campaign activity of different "independent" organizations.
What the trial judge decided is that technically Walker's activity didn't breach the threshold of crmininality, based on the judge's interpretation of what "Political advocacy" means. So it's a technical definition matter not an "absolutely no probable cause" matter.
The judge's interpretation is hotly disputed both in and out of the courts, which is why it's under appeal.
Did you even read the article?
$1:
Wisconsin Club for Growth maintains that prohibition does not apply to them and other conservative groups because they did not run ads explicitly telling people how to vote. Their efforts praised Walker and criticized his Democratic opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, but did not use the phrases "vote for" or "vote against," they argue.
Randa and the second state judge overseeing the probe, state Reserve Judge Gregory Peterson, have sided with conservatives on that point. Prosecutors are seeking to overturn those rulings in state and federal court.
The prosecutors say the work amounts to illegal campaign contributions. They contend Wisconsin Club for Growth doled out money to other groups, who then used it to help Walker or other Republicans.
For example, the organization gave $2.5 million to Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, which in turn placed ads supporting Walker and Republicans, and criticizing their foes.
The club gave $4.6 million to Citizens for a Strong America — a sum that represented 99.9% of its revenue. The group then passed on some of the money to other groups — $1.2 million to Wisconsin Family Action, nearly $350,000 to Wisconsin Right to Life, and $245,000 to United Sportsmen of Wisconsin. In addition, Schmitz alleged, Citizens for a Strong America was the creation of Jordahl and Johnson. Johnson's wife, Valerie, was the treasurer and a signatory on the bank account, the brief alleges.
Johnson directly controlled Wisconsin Club for Growth, and Jordahl was a signatory on the club's bank account, the brief states.
"We own CFG," Johnson has stated, according to prosecutors
That's the the 'judgement call' that the judge recently aggreed in favour of the conservative, not a 'obivous' or pre-existing fact.
So let's recap shall we?
What is alleged to be the crime?
The law says that a political campaign can't surrpetitiously campaign under false banners by controlling and coordinating with outside organizations. Nobody disputes that.
The republican campaign moved money and co-ordinted/controlled political advertising messages of 9 different outside orgnatization in every district. Nobody disputes that.
The republicans claim that it's only a crime if the messages and money are used to explicity say "Vote for/against Candidate X" but not if they are just used to say things like 'Candidate X is good/evil'.