In 2002, while working a polling site in Selma, Alabama, during a state senate race, I remember vividly how proud I felt to be participating in our democratic process. Being in the very city where the value of voting and the right to vote was literally beaten into the consciousness of the American people, had a profound and lasting impact on me.

 The right of citizens to vote is not to be taken lightly; it is an essential right and is the highest form of exercising civic responsibility. It is what we are supposed to do as citizens of this country, and being in Selma reinforced that view for me. In spite of or because of the many people that engaged in invaluable efforts – and sometimes paid with their lives – to ensure that all Americans could vote, it is our responsibility to participate in this process.

For much of the first decade of the 21st century, however, those lessons were lost as state governments and even the federal government actively sought to suppress the vote and disenfranchise millions of Americans. In late January, the situation for our democracy got even worse.

On Jan. 21, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns as long as they don't formally "coordinate" with candidates or political parties. American politics is already dominated by money. The amount of money that will now be available will be astronomical and could easily drown out the voice of the average American voter. The potential to unbalance the scales and infringe on the right of all Americans to have their voices heard through the principle of "one person, one vote" presents a clear and present danger to our democracy.

Corporations and their allies may even outspend political parties in seeking to influence policy and the whole of the political discourse. The most recent example: according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its national subsidiaries spent $144.5 million in 2009, far more than the Republican National Committee and more than double the expenditures of the Democratic National Committee.

In 1971, Marvin Gaye wrote and released one of the most powerful albums ever made – What’s Going On. It was a simple question about the events of the time, and his expression about those events transcended time. Thus, I use it now. What's going on?

The Citizens United decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, removes limits on so-called "independent expenditures" that are not coordinated with candidates' campaigns. It leaves in place a ban on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions, but it allows for unlimited donations to flow to some nonprofit corporations – 501(c)(4)s, 527s, and PACs – to use to influence elections in a partisan manner. Justice Anthony Kennedy, using what some call "aggressive intervention" or "judicial activism," said that political speech is "indispensable to decision making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual." So now corporations are to be treated the same as individual American citizens? What's going on?

The five-justice majority also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that served to regulate union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns. Advocates of responsible government, campaign finance reform, and those organizations that promote civic engagement are rightfully concerned and dismayed that the ruling against the limits will be tantamount to selling our elections to the highest bidder. What's going on?

This Supreme Court ruling has the potential to drown out the voice of "We the People." A strong response to the Court's ruling is necessary and puts 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations in a critical position to ensure that their constituents’ needs and concerns aren't lost in a deluge of corporate dollars. Otherwise, I fear all we are left with is the question, "What's going on?"

Almost two years ago, a 527 organization called SpeechNow.org, asked for a court ruling that would have blocked the Federal Election Commission (FEC) from enforcing limits on contributions to the group. On Jan. 27, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments in the case. The court must consider whether the group should be subject to an annual limit on donations from individuals and comply with disclosure requirements.

SpeechNow.org wants to collect unlimited contributions to help elect candidates who support free political speech. They argue that prohibiting contributions of more than $5,000 per year is an unconstitutional violation of free speech and association rights. After the group was initially formed in 2007, the FEC said it would have to register as a political committee, which requires contribution limits and prohibits corporate contributions.

News reports indicate that FEC attorney David Kolker faced skeptical questioning from appeals court judges as he sought to defend the contribution limits. The judges supposedly seemed sympathetic to SpeechNow.org's argument. The Associated Press reports that one of the judges told the lawyer representing the FEC; "You don't seem to value the First Amendment very highly."

According to BNA Money and Politics ($$), Kolker noted that the Citizens United ruling does not change limits on contributions to political parties. "Similar restrictions on non-party groups also should remain, the FEC lawyer said, because such groups can act as 'shadow parties' and be used to circumvent limits on contributions to candidates."

The judges suggested that since, "the Citizens United case established that independent expenditures do not corrupt candidates and thus cannot be limited under the First Amendment. It is not a long leap, the judges suggested, to assume that groups making only independent expenditures, like SpeechNow.org, cannot have their funding sources limited."

However, as the Supreme Court upheld disclosure requirements, judges in this case also seemed doubtful when SpeechNow.org argued that the group should not have to provide reports of its finances to the FEC. Rather, they contend that reports filed with the Internal Revenue Service provide enough public disclosure.

SpeechNow.org highlighted the recent EMILY’s List decision, which struck down regulations limiting donations to nonprofit political action committees that are used for campaign activity. The case also questioned the constitutionality of limits on contributions to independent political committees even though they were not challenged in the lawsuit.

Almost a week has passed since the Supreme Court issued the very significant ruling in the Citizens United case. There has been nonstop commentary and discussion of the possible ramifications. During a news conference, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) announced plans to hold hearings and introduce legislation to curtail the effects of the decision. One suggestion from the lawmakers would require shareholders to vote before a corporation could spend money in elections.

Another option would prohibit corporations that do business with the federal government from using corporate funds to make independent expenditures. For example, contributions or expenditures could be limited for companies that have contracts or subcontracts with the government, or government grantees, and their affiliates. Congress may try to ban corporate contributions to nonprofits that engage in election communications, or corporations could be required to disclose contributions made to another incorporated entity (such as a 501(c)(4)) for the purposes of making a political expenditure. Other options include strengthening disclaimer and disclosure rules, requiring companies to more clearly identify themselves in the ads.

In addition to those already introduced, such as legislation to create an optional public financing system for congressional elections (the Fair Elections Now Act), more legislative responses to the ruling are still being formulated.

In the House HR 4522 has been introduced to, "apply the ban on contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals to domestic corporations which are owned or controlled by foreign principals." Under current law, election spending by non-U.S. persons and entities is prohibited and is unaffected by the ruling. However, some suggest that the prohibition on campaign expenditures by foreign nationals could be vulnerable. According to Politico, President Obama will urge Congress during the State of the Union address to pass legislation restricting foreign corporations from getting involved in federal elections.

Politico, also reports that, "the White House doesn't appear to consider the FEC or the public financing overhauls as immediate priorities. Nor does it appear likely to embrace a public financing system for congressional campaigns."

A more problematic legislative prospect would tighten rules prohibiting outside groups from coordinating ads with candidates. Corporations may now directly advocate for the election or defeat of federal candidates, as long as they do not coordinate their efforts with campaigns or political parties. However, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has not yet finalized a definition of coordinated expenditures. The FEC is currently undertaking a rulemaking to reconsider what precisely constitutes coordination.

Before the Court even issued its ruling Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) introduced five bills in anticipation of an unfavorable decision. For example, the Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act, H.R. 4432, would require public companies to tell the Securities and Exchange Commission when they spend to influence public opinion on any matter other than the promotion of their services. The Ending Corporate Collusion Act, H.R. 4433, would apply antitrust laws to a political committee established and run by a corporation.

For more on what nonprofits and political leaders are doing to address the Court decision, read this latest Watcher article.

The Social Innovation Fund, a program of the Corporation for Community Service and the Obama administration’s major philanthropic effort, has issued a Proposed Notice of Funds Available (NOFA) and a request for feedback. SIF will award up to $50 dollars in federal funding during Fiscal Year 2010.

America Forward, the coalition of nonprofit organizations that made the policy recommendations that led to the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, which authorized the program, says the SIF is "intended to increase the impact of social entrepreneurs and innovative nonprofit organizations by scaling proven programs and investing in promising new ideas."

According to the NOFA, in "FY 2010, SIF awards will be made to a select number of grantmaking intermediaries (or eligible partnerships) focused on improving measurable outcomes in the following priority areas: increased economic opportunity; preparing America’s youth for success in school, active citizenship, productive work, and healthy and safe lives; [and] promoting healthy lifestyles and reducing the risk factors that can lead to illness."

Any feedback or comments are due on January 15.