seeking a permanent injunction must show that: (1) the party has achieved actual success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm will result unless the injunction is issued; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the harm that the injunction may cause to the opposing party; and (4) the injunction, if issued, will not adversely affect the public interest. Langlois v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 78 P.3d 1154, 1158 (Colo.App.2003). 12 . In this Part we do not address the contribution bans imposed on labor organizations or Amendment 54's prohibition on contributions to ballot issues. We discuss these provisions in Parts V and VI, respectively. 13 . Citizens United held that "independent expenditures ... do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." 130 S.Ct. at 909; see id. at 908 (<HOLDING>). 14 . The State argues at great length on
holding in the absence of exceptional circumstances deference should be given to trial court holding that the explicit status quo provisions together with   2 first form an integrated harmonious scheme for preserving the status quo from the beginning of the major dispute through the final 30day coolingoff period holding that terms of the trust were incorporated in the will by reference as an integral part of the will and that in the absence of evidence that the testator clearly manifested a contrary intention they continued to set forth the testators distribution plan even though the former had lost its independent legal significance holding that we will not reverse in the absence of prejudice holding that the absence of prearrangement and coordination for independent expenditures alleviates the danger that expenditures will be given as a quid pro quo