Gillian Caldwell is the Campaign Director for 1Sky. This post first appeared on Huffington Post.

In the coming weeks, the Supreme Court is set to rule in the Citizens United vs. FEC case, which could potentially overturn 100 years of campaign finance precedent. The case refers to a documentary, Hillary: The Movie, set to air during the 2008 presidential primary that was highly critical of then-presidential candidate, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The FEC blocked the availability of the film pay-per-view television due to the "electioneering communication" provision of Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) 2002. While this might seem like an obscure campaign finance issue, 1Sky is concerned about the possible implications of the case on issues we care about if the court rules that corporations may donate unlimited funds from their treasuries on independent expenditures.

It is no secret that campaigns continue to become more and more expensive and overrun with contributions from polluters like big oil, coal, and gas. Special interest money has made campaigns less accessible to the average citizen. Now, with the possibility of unlimited corporate independent expenditures looking even more possible, we as citizen organizers are working together to keep the people's voice at the center of politics.

This issue strongly affects our fight against climate change for it is estimated that since 1990, oil and gas interests alone have donated close to $245 million to federal campaigns, according to Center for Responsive Politics. This money helps maintain the status quo and silence the voices of countless Americans ready for their representatives to address environmental issues. Imagine a coal company setting up an independent campaign operation to defeat your member of Congress that voted in favor of the American Clean Energy Security Act (.pdf) that will vastly improve our restrictions on carbon emissions.

So how can we fight back against our money driven system that may be on the path to get even worse? 1Sky has joined more than 30 organizations representing the environment, civil rights, and labor communities in support of the Fair Elections Now Act (HR 1826/S 752), which would enable politicians to run viable campaigns on the donations of citizens instead of deep-pocked special interests. Once elected, members of Congress would be free from the influence of their special interest donors.

We here at 1Sky strongly urge Congress to pass the Fair Elections Now Act in the wake of the Citizens United decision. To learn more or urge your representative to co-sponsor the Fair Elections Now Act click here.

Our friends at Public Citizen released a new report yesterday that found that members of the Senate and House banking committees received, on average, two and a half times as much money from the financial services industry as other members of Congress.

The new report echoes earlier findings from Common Cause that showed how the lending industry prevented the government from doing more to prevent the financial crisis or help families who have been hurt by it.  (See our "Ask Yourself Why Congress Didn't See the Economic Crisis Coming" report.)

According to Public Citizen President Robert Weissman:

Cross-posted on TimesUnion.com.

The misdemeanor conviction of  NY State Senator Hiram Monserrate for physically abusing his girlfriend is widely seen as placing the Democrats in the State Senate in a difficult position. If the court had found Monserrate guilty of a felony, he would automatically have been removed from office. Because he was found guilty of a misdemeanor, it is up to the Senate itself to decide what to do. The Senate Democrats need Monserrate's vote to maintain the 32 votes needed to pass anything in our state Senate. While calls mount for Monserrate's resignation, (a position supported by Common Cause/NY), he himself seems willing to try and foolishly ride out the storm. This is precisely the sort of situation which having an effective, independent ethics oversight body is designed to prevent.

Senate Democratic Conference Leader John Sampson is to be commended for not dropping this hot potato and quickly setting up a bipartisan committee, appointing women to four of the five Democratic slots. Now the hot potato passes to the Republicans and we're waiting to learn who their four appointees will be.

The public is tired of ethics oversight being a game of hot potato. Even good ad hoc responses don't provide the uniformity or predictability that is required and don't help build public confidence in Albany's ability to deal with ethics problems. Because today's ethics crisis met a good response (and I don't want to downplay the credit that Senator Sampson gets for his action, he should get real props) doesn't tell us anything about how the next crisis will be handled. The State Senate could go back to the old "ignore it and it will go away" approach to ethics problems we've seen so frequently in Albany.

What's needed is a legislative response. Take ethics oversight out of the hands of those overseen. Our choice is the unitary ethics oversight body that oversees both the executive and legislative branches, as would be set up by S5738. But certainly, the reform package contained in S6157 and S6064 would address our concerns as well and has our support. That ethics reform package didn't pass when it came up in September. The Senate should make some modifications and bring the matter to the floor again as soon as possible.

Once effective ethics reform is signed into law, the Senate will no longer be forced to play pass the hot potato.

Common Cause is taking part in America's Giving Challenge, which gives us a chance to win $50,000!

To win, between now and November 7th we have to get the most donations to our Facebook cause (every person can donate once per day and have it count as a unique donation).  We can also win daily awards of $1,000 and $500 if we can get the most people to donate in any 24-hour period.  The great thing about this Challenge is that it doesn't matter how much you give, but instead how much you do to encourage friends and family to get involved in our cause.  We all need to come together and start promoting the cause if we want to win.

And you don't have to be on Facebook to participate.  Just go to http://www.causes.com/donations/select_donation_method?cause_id=28343 to donate.  Remember, it's not the group that raises the biggest total that wins - it's the group that gets donations from the biggest number of people.  Your $10 gift counts as much as a $1000 gift, so the most important thing is that you make a donation -- no matter the size.

If you are on Facebook, please use your network to spread the work about the Giving Challenge and encourage your friends to participate.  There are a lot of nonprofits that have been hit hard by the economic downturn, and this is a great way for everyone to do something small that will have a big impact.

Thanks!

Remember the financial meltdown we had last year? Well, it looks as though Congress is attempting to prevent the deceitful practices that got us there in the first place.

The House Financial Services Committee held a hearing today regarding the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency that would set and enforce more consumer-friendly standards on traditional mortgages and loans. The Agency would essentially be able to investigate and penalize institutions that violate particular regulations, all in the name of giving consumers options with less risk.

Present before Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) and a roughly half-filled Committee bench, several witnesses explained on behalf of their respective organizations the merits and necessity (or lack thereof) of such an institution.

NAACP Director Hilary O. Shelton, along with National Council of La Raza Policy Analyst Janis Bowdler mentioned the disproportionate impact of predatory financial practices on ethnic minority communities as one of several reasons for creating the agency. On the other side of the spectrum, Heritage Foundation Research Fellow David C. John warned against the bureaucratic inefficiency of such a massive regulatory arm.

The Committee's Republicans took issue with the idea of more regulations as well. Rep. Edward Royce (R-CA) highlighted the issue of states' rights, mentioning that state and local government laws would conflict with the proposed agency's standards. Furthermore, Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) criticized the proposal as a "government overreach."

Rep. Maxine Waters shortly thereafter responded by grilling David C. John and asking if "more of the same" was the answer.

So what does this ultimately mean for the American public? It means that we have to continue watching the debate, and more specifically, watch what kind of "favors" come in and out of it.

The Center for Responsive Politics reports that the finance and insurance sector donated over $475 million to members of Congress last year, and that over $50 million has been pumped in so far for the 2010 election cycle. With that said, one must question whether Congress can truly regulate the financial sector and give Americans the full protection of the laws under such conditions.

The nature and efficiency of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency that may or may not rise from these discussions will provide part of the answer.

Would you trust the results of the election to just one voting machine company?

You just might have to.

Diebold's voting machine division Premier Election Solutions, which has come under regular criticism for voting irregularities, an insecure software platform, and a possibility of voter fraud, has been acquired by ES&S, the nation's largest voting machine manufacturer. While the two companies consider the deal closed, Texas-based Hart InterCivic has filed suit to block the merger.

The implications of this proposed merger are enormous. Not only does this sale likely violate antitrust law, making it more difficult for local election officials to negotiate for affordable voting units, but it could call into question the validity of nearly 70 percent of the vote nationwide. And, in Ohio for example, ES&S would be the sole provider of electronic voting machines in nearly every precinct. Pretty incredible.

Common Cause President Bob Edgar issued a letter today to the Justice Department's Antitrust Division urging for a thorough review of the merger.

We'll keep you updated as this unfolds.

Emily Kinkead is a former Common Cause intern and former Democracy Matters coordinator at Bloomberg University in Pennsylvania.

At 7:45 am, I arrived at the base of the marble steps of the Supreme Court building to view the rehearing of arguments for the case of the non-profit corporation Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.  This case, significant both as the first case for Elena Kagan to argue on behalf of the Government as Solicitor General and the first case to be heard with Justice Sotomayor sitting on the bench, could vastly alter the face of our election system.  While originally addressing a narrow First Amendment question regarding whether or not the Commission's decision to disallow the marketing via broadcast of the non-profit's documentary Hillary: The Movie under the claim that it was "electioneering communication", the rehearing addressed a far more broad and influential question: Should the Supreme Court overturn either or both Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and part of McConnell v. F.E.C.  These two significant rulings on campaign finance law hung in the balance as the rain drizzled down on those of us huddled in close waiting for the doors to open thus allowing us to witness this case for which every exception in the book was made.

Some straight talk from Robert Reich: