In 2009, just 1 percent of respondents to National Business Ethics Survey — a large industry study funded by major corporations like Walmart — said they had witnessed illegal corporate political donations. This year, that number quadrupled to 4 percent. Management-level employees at large, publicly traded companies were most likely to see the illegal activity, with seven percent of senior managers saying they had witnessed it.

While it’s unclear exactly what caused the spike, Roll Call reports it may have to do with increasingly lax campaign finance laws in the wake of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision:

“If these numbers are quadrupling, it is eye-popping,” said Kenneth Gross, a lawyer with Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom’s political law practice who advises corporate clients on government affairs compliance. “Possibly the relaxed laws on giving have pervaded … the workplace, giving people the impression that things aren’t as strict as they were.”

Although it is not clear what led to the spike, there is no question that the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which opened the door to unlimited political spending by unions and corporations, has dramatically changed the landscape of political giving in the business world, heightening pressure on fundraisers to rake in big sums from new sources.

Meanwhile, employees reported a similar increase in observing bribes and improper payments to public officials that violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

In just three short years on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, conservative Justice Michael Gableman managed to embroil himself in two major ethics scandals. The first, which arose before he was even elected to the court, arose out of a false ad Gableman ran during his election campaign claiming that his opponent unleashed a child molester on society. This ad led to an official ethics complaint from the state Judicial Commission, although the ethics case was eventually dropped after Gableman’s six colleagues on the state’s highest court split 3-3 along party lines on whether Gableman committed misconduct.

In order to defend himself against this ethics complaint, Gableman received tens of thousands of dollars in free legal fees from a law firm that frequently litigates in front of his court. Yet Gableman has continued to sit on cases brought by that firm — even casting the deciding vote allowing Gov. Scott Walker’s (R) attack on collective bargaining to go into effect.

In response to these two incidents, a member of the state legislature has now introduced a resolution calling for Gableman to be removed from the bench:

A Democratic state lawmaker circulated a resolution Wednesday calling for the ouster of Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman because he presided over cases involving a law firm that had represented him without charging legal fees.

State Rep. Kelda Helen Roys, an attorney who is also running for Congress for the district covering the city of Madison, asked her colleagues to sign on to the resolution by Jan. 18. The state constitution allows for the Legislature to remove a judge from office with a two-thirds majority vote in both the Senate and Assembly.

Although Roys’ resolution is very unlikely to receive the two-thirds majority it requires in the GOP-controlled state legislature, Wisconsin’s voters are not powerless if they agree with Roys that Gableman’s actions go too far. Because Gableman has served more than a year of his current term in elected office, Wisconsin election law allows him to be recalled.

Virginia Del. Bob Marshall (R) is easily one of the worst lawmakers in America. He is an arch-nullificationist, who has sponsored multiple unconstitutional bills trying to keep federal laws he disagrees with from applying in Virginia. He once claimed that children with disabilities are God’s punishment to women who had abortions. And he routinely pushes arguments motivated by delusional anti-gay beliefs.

So it’s only a little surprising that Marshall has taken on another crusade — arming college professors:

Less than two months after the University of Virginia strengthened its campus weapons restrictions, a state legislator has introduced a bill that would circumvent the university’s intentions.

The legislation would allow faculty members to carry concealed handguns on college campuses. UVa’s newly adopted weapons regulation prohibits students, faculty and visitors from carrying weapons on university property.

Marshall claims his bill could prevent another tragedy like the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting, presumably by enabling some heroic cultural anthropology professor to emerge from his office and gun down an assailant. The facts, however, do not agree with Marshall that concealed firearms prevent crime — indeed, they say the opposite.

Although there does not appear to be any data on whether conscripting academics to dole out vigilante justice at the barrel of a gun is an effective crime fighting strategy, a 2003 study published in the Stanford Law Review examined “shall-issue” laws, a common state law making it easier to obtain a license to carry a concealed firearm. It found that, in the “clear majority of states,” these permissive concealed carry rules “are associated with increases in crime for all crime types.”

Arizona passed a law in 2010 that bans schools from teaching ethnic studies. Believing such classes promoted “ethnic chauvinism,” former state schools superintendent and the law’s sponsor Tom Horne sought to ban any class that are “designed primarily for students of a particular race or that promote resentment toward a certain ethnic group.” His primary target: the Tucson Unified School District, which offers classes in African-American, Mexican-American and Native-American studies. Insisting that the Mexican-American program taught Latino students “that they are oppressed by white people,” Horne equated the program to the Jim Crow era. “It’s just like the old South, and it’s long past time that we prohibited it,” he said.

Under the law, the state can withhold 10 percent of funding for any school district that refuses to change its courses. Last Friday, the current state schools superintendent John Huppenthal followed through, holding back $15 million a year from Tucson district. Eleven teachers and two students filed suit to prevent the law from taking effect, but on Tuesday, U.S. Circuit Court Judge A. Wallace Tashima refused to grant the injunction but ruled that the students could challenge the law on First Amendment grounds. Thus, the Tuscon district’s school board suspended the Mexican-American studies department:

The Governing Board of the Tucson Unified School District voted late Tuesday to suspend immediately the Mexican-American studies department, marking a turning point in a yearlong controversy over a new state law banning certain ethnic studies.

“The district shall revise its social studies core curriculum to increase its coverage of Mexican-American history and culture, including a balanced presentation of diverse viewpoints on controversial issues. The end result shall be a single common social studies core sequence through which all high school students are exposed to diverse viewpoints,” the governing board said in a statement.

“The district shall study and bring to the board new measures designed to narrow the achievement gaps for traditionally underserved and economically disadvantaged students,” the board said.

Opponents of the law noted that Huppenthal’s own audit of the program actually praised the classes and found “no observable evidence” that the classes violated the law. Nonetheless, an administrative law judge insisted that the program’s curriculum was teaching Latino history “in a biased, political, and emotionally charged manner,” thus spurring Huppenthal’s decision to withhold funds.

School Board member Adelita Grijalva argued that the law was unconstitutional and reflected the “anti-immigrant political climate in the Arizona statehouse.” “This is not a militarized group that want to overthrow the government,” she said, urging the board to preserve the program and appeal the decision. “This is a group that wants their children to understand about about their culture and their role in our American history and our lives.” The final vote was 4 to 1, with Grijalva offering the sole objection.

If voting legislation in 2011 centered largely on hindering access to the ballot box, 2012 will hopefully be defined as the year that voting rights began fighting back.

Last year, a rash of anti-voting legislation popped up in states around the country, from Florida to Texas to Wisconsin. New laws banning anyone without photo IDs from voting (commonly known as “voter ID”) grabbed the headlines, in part because of their potential to disenfranchise over 3 million citizens in the 2012 election, but lesser-known legislation emerged as well. This included shortening early voting periods, permanently disenfranchising felons no longer in prison, trying to remove voters’ ability in some states to register on election day, and making it more difficult for outside groups like League of Women Voters to register citizens.

Reeling from 2011′s setbacks, lawmakers in a number of states are introducing legislation this year to recoup many of those voting rights that were taken away. Courtesy of Project Vote, here is a rundown of some of the state legislation being introduced that will improve, rather than hinder, access to the polls:

FLORIDA: In 2011, Florida passed one of the most onerous election reform bills of any state in the nation. The law reduces early voting from 14 days to eight and drove out third party registration groups like the League of Women Voters by requiring third party registration groups to turn in all registration forms within 48 hours of completion. A new bill, SB 1636, would increase the early voting period to 15 days and allow third party groups 10 days to turn in completed registration applications.

NEW YORK: A number of positive bills have been introduced in New York. AB 293/SB 1556 would establish early voting up to two weeks before an election. AB 1684 would allow citizens to register on Election Day. And AB 5915/SB 1009 would make it illegal to knowingly deceive voters about the time or place of an election.

VIRGINIA: A bill to restore voting rights for people who have been convicted of a felony and completed their sentence was recently prefiled.

WASHINGTON: HB 2204 would allow for citizens to register in person on election day, while setting the deadline for registering to vote online at eight days prior to the election.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) also introduced federal legislation last month to restore voting rights for felons who have completed their sentence.

Public advocates hope the tide of anti-voting legislation has been stemmed and this rash of new legislation will help restore many of those rights that were recently lost. ThinkProgress will continue to monitor their progress and report on the overall state of voting rights across the country.