of tens of millions of dollars on ballot issues presenting complex policy proposals. Today, this Court simply holds that the new threshold remains well below the line. D. The Remedy Having found that both §§ 11.30 and 11.23 unconstitutional as applied to Hatchett, this Court addresses his requests for a permanent injunction, and declaratory judgment that the statutes are facially unconstitutional. To obtain permanent injunctive relief, a plaintiff must satisfy the following four factors: (1) that he has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensat 613, 620 (7th Cir.2004) (quoting Elrod, 427 U.S. at 373, 96 S.Ct. 2673); Citizens for a Better Env’t v. City of Park Ridge, 567 F.2d 689, 691 (7th Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>); Schnell v. City of Chicago, 407 F.2d 1084,
holding that potential loss of a contract constitutes irreparable injury holding that plaintiffs necessarily demonstrated irreparable harm because they showed a substantial likelihood that their first amendment rights had been infringed holding that deprivation of constitutional rights unquestionably constitutes irreparable harm holding that loss of the opportunity to fairly compete for a contract constitutes irreparable harm holding that even a temporary deprivation of first amendment rights constitutes irreparable harm