UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

____________________________________ 

 ) 

THE TEA PARTY LEADERSHIP FUND, ) 

et al. ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Civil Case No. 1:12-cv-01707-RWR 

) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

____________________________________) 

___________________________________________________ 

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

___________________________________________________ 

This Court rightly asks why this case should not conserve judicial resources by 

combining a resolution of the motion for preliminary injunction with a determination on the 

merits under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2). See Order to Show Cause, Oct. 22, 2012 (hereinafter 

“Order”). But the reason it should rule on the motion for preliminary injunction is 

straightforward: Plaintiff Sean Bielat is battling Joseph P. Kennedy III to represent the citizens of 

Massachusetts’ Fourth Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives, with the 

contest to be decided on November 6, 2012. Mr. Bielat can use $2,500 in additional support from 

the Tea Party Leadership Fund on or before November 6th. 

Plaintiff John Raese is currently engaged in a bid to unseat Senator Joe Manchin of West 

Virginia and would welcome additional support to do so. There are many other candidates the 

Tea Party Leadership Fund would like to support up to $5,000 per election between now and 

November 6th. If this Court does not make a preliminary ruling on plaintiffs’ claims by 

November 5, the opportunity to support these candidates, and the ability of these candidates to 

Case 1:12-cv-01707-RWR Document 6 Filed 10/25/12 Page 1 of 2
deploy that support, will be lost. This is unacceptable: “The loss of First Amendment freedoms, 

for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable harm.” Elrod v. Burns,

427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976). 

 Defendant FEC has until November 1 to oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary 

Injunction. See Consent Motion for Extension of Time, Oct. 19, 2012. Plaintiffs are hopeful this 

Court can grant preliminary relief to Plaintiffs between November 1 and November 5 of this 

year, so that Plaintiffs may use any favorable ruling to participate in the November 6 election. 

 As such, Plaintiffs do not agree that the hearings should be consolidated. Consolidation 

would leave insufficient time between the filing of the FEC’s Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for 

Preliminary Injunction on November 1 and the election of November 6 for the parties to file “a 

proposed schedule on which full sequential summary judgment briefing [c]ould proceed,” Order 

at 1-2, let alone conduct that briefing in time to grant adequate relief to Plaintiffs. 

 This Court should not consolidate the preliminary injunction determination with briefing 

on the merits. 

Respectfully submitted, 

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 6 Filed 10/25/12 Page 2 of 2