UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

 

The Tea Party Leadership Fund ) 

209 Pennsylvania Ave SE, Suite 2109 ) 

Washington, DC 20003 ) 

 ) 

Mr. John Raese ) 

The Raese for Senate Committee ) 

PO BOX 262 ) 

Morgantown, WV 26507 ) 

 ) 

Mr. Sean Bielat ) 

Bielat for Congress 2012 ) 

PO BOX 1143 ) 

Brookline, MA 02446 ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Civil Case No. ________________ 

) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION ) 

999 E Street, NW ) 

Washington, DC 20463, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

____________________________________) 

____________________________________________ 

MOTION FOR EMERGENCY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

____________________________________________ 

Plaintiffs move for an emergency preliminary injunction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. 

Plaintiffs file their Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Memorandum 

in Support of Emergency Preliminary Injunction Memo concurrently. 

 As described in the Verified Complaint and Memorandum, Plaintiffs complain against 

the unconstitutionality of a six-month waiting period at 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(4) and contribution 

limits at 2 U.S.C. §§ 441a(a)(1)(C) as applied to contributions the Tea Party Leadership Fund 

would make to Plaintiffs Raese and Bielat and other federal candidates.1

 Plaintiffs have established probable success on the merits, demonstrating that they will be 

irreparably harmed, that an injunction will not substantially harm the Defendant, the Federal 

 

1

 Plaintiffs also challenge facially the six-month waiting period, but that is a determination this Court need not 

address in adjudicating Plaintiffs’ Motion for Emergency Preliminary Injunction. 

Case 1:12-cv-01707-RWR Document 1-1 Filed 10/18/12 Page 1 of 3
Election Commission, that an injunction serves the public interest, and that there is no adequate 

remedy at law. Because a preliminary injunction presents no monetary risk to the FEC, Plaintiffs 

request that any bond requirement should be waived. 

 In accord with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 65.1(c), Plaintiffs have filed a Verified 

Complaint contemporaneously with this request for injunctive relief. Verified Complaints are 

the legal equivalent of an affidavit. See Neal v. Kelly, 963 F.2d 453 (D.C. Cir. 1992); Mallick v. 

Int'l Broth. of Elec. Workers, 814 F.2d 674, 680 (D.C. Cir. 1987). In addition, pursuant to Local 

Rule 7(m), Plaintiffs have conferred with legal counsel for the FEC concerning whether these 

provisions should be subject to preliminary injunctive relief. The response of the FEC is 

included in Plaintiffs’ Notice of Consultation on Motions. 

 As detailed in the accompanying Memorandum, Plaintiffs request that this court grant its 

preliminary injunction motion and preliminarily enjoin the FEC from enforcing 2 U.S.C. §§ 

441a(a)(4) and 441a(a)(1)(C) as-applied to contributions the Tea Party Leadership Fund will 

make to federal candidates before November’s election, until a final hearing on the merits of this 

matter. 

Stephen M. Hoersting* 

 /s/ 

Dan Backer (D.C. Bar No. 996641) 

DB CAPITOL STRATEGIES, PLLC 

209 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, Suite 2109 

Washington, DC 20003 

937.623.6102 

202.210.5431 

shoersting@dbcapitolstrategies.com

dbacker@dbcapitolstrategies.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

*Motions for Pro Hac Vice to be filed. 

Case 1:12-cv-01707-RWR Document 1-1 Filed 10/18/12 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 17th day of October, 2012, I caused to be served this Motion 

for Preliminary Injunction by postage prepaid, first class mail, upon the following counsel: 

Anthony Herman, General Counsel 

Federal Election Commission 

999 E Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20463 

Dated: October 17, 2012 

Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ 

Dan Backer (D.C. Bar No. 996641) 

DB CAPITOL STRATEGIES, PLLC 

209 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, Suite 2109 

Washington, DC 20003 

202.210.5431 

dbacker@dbcapitolstrategies.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 1:12-cv-01707-RWR Document 1-1 Filed 10/18/12 Page 3 of 3