considering requests for preliminary injunctions have consistently recognized the significant public interest in upholding First Amendment principles. See Homans v. Albuquerque, 264 F.3d 1240, 1244 (10th Cir.2001) (“We believe that the public interest is better served by following binding Supreme Court precedent and protecting the core First Amendment right of political expression.”); Iowa Right to Life Comm’e, Inc. v. Williams, 187 F.3d 963, 970 (8th Cir.1999) (finding a district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because “the potential harm to independent expression and certainty in public discussion of issues is great and the public interest favors protecting core First Amendment freedoms”); Suster v. Marshall, 149 F.3d 523, 530 (6th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Elam Constr., Inc. v. Regional Transp. Dist.,
holding that the standard for permanent injunction is the same as that for preliminary injunction with the one exception being that the plaintiff must show actual success on the merits rather than likelihood of success holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction holding that a movant that clearly establishes likelihood of success on the merits receives the benefit of a presumption of irreparable harm holding candidates for judicial office were entitled to preliminary injunction of expenditure limit given likelihood of success on the merits irreparable harm and lack of public interest in enforcing a law that curtailed political speech holding that the movant had to establish both of the first two factors ie likelihood of success and irreparable harm to receive a preliminary injunction