Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., announced several proposed legislative changes today to blunt the effect of the Supreme Court's recent ruling that allows corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertising.

Schumer said the lawmakers, who are working closely with the White House and Democratic leaders, plan to introduce a bill in the coming weeks that would require new disclosure rules on corporate spending and CEO disclaimers in political ads, along with limits on foreign involvement in political advertising. They said they want the measures in place quickly to curb unrestricted corporate spending in November's midterm congressional elections.

"Today, we're beginning to pick up the pieces of campaign-finance" laws "shattered" by the high court's ruling, Schumer told reporters.

But groups supporting a bill that would publicly finance congressional elections said the proposal doesn't go far enough.

"These are good first steps but as a package they fall short of getting to the heart of the problem of money in politics," said Nick Nyhart, president and CEO of Public Campaign. "At the end of the day, these proposals still leave members of Congress dependent on money from Wall Street interests, insurance companies, and the other deep pocket interests who control Washington, D.C."

The "framework" unveiled Thursday would:

Ban federal contractors or recipients of federal bailout money from spending on political ads that call for the election or defeat of candidates.

Bar foreign companies from paying for the ads. (Federal law already bans foreigners from contributing to campaigns. Schumer and Van Hollen say they want to ensure that U.S. companies with substantial foreign investment cannot sway U.S. elections. Companies with 20% foreign ownership or those with a majority of foreign board members would be subject to the ban.)

Impose new disclosure requirements to discourage corporations and unions from funneling their money through trade associations and shadowy non-profit groups that do not have to publicly release their donors' names under current law. Companies also would have to disclose their political spending to shareholders and federal securities regulators.

Require CEOs of companies who fund political ads to appear in the advertising. Candidates and political parties mentioned in corporate-funded ads could demand the cheapest available rate on response ads.

The lawmakers face several challenges. The Federal Election Commission already has announced that it would stop enforcing its rules on corporate- and union-funded political advertising to comply with the ruling.

At the same time, the measures to curb spending have attracted little Republican support. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who championed a major campaign-finance law in 2002, recently declared there was little Congress could do to respond.

Update at 4:45 p.m. ET: The folks at the Center for Competitive Politics, which favors fewer campaign restrictions, slammed the Schumer-Van Hollen proposals this afternoon.

The proposals violate constitutional rights to free speech, the group says.

"The First Amendment should not be plowed over because of an inconvenient political storm," said Bradley A. Smith, the group's chairman and a former Federal Election Commission chairman. "This is a cynical attempt to brush aside constitutional concerns because of a short-term perception of partisan gain."

The full statement can be found here.

(Posted by Fredreka Schouten)