Congressional Democrats outlined legislation Thursday aimed at undoing a recent Supreme Court decision that allows corporations and interest groups to spend freely on political advertising. To accomplish that goal, the legislation would impose a patchwork of spending restrictions and disclosure requirements -- many based in current laws. The measure would greatly expand the scope of an existing ban on political commercials paid for by foreign corporations, ban political commercials paid for by government contractors or recipients of bailout money, and force corporations and unions to make public details of what they spend directly or through advocacy groups. The legislation's sponsors, Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York and Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, said they wanted the measure enacted in time to limit the impact of the court's decision in the case, Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission, before the fall campaigns. 'Otherwise the court will have predetermined the winner of the midterm elections,' Schumer said. 'It won't be the Republicans or the Democrats. It will be corporate America.' Many of the proposals, like restrictions on foreign companies or government contractors, have populist appeal, but passage would require the vote of at least one Republican senator. Five current Republican senators -- led at the time by Sen. John McCain of Arizona -- voted for the spending rules that the court chipped away, but not one has yet embraced the Democrats' proposals. The sponsors said they had developed the legislation to comply with the court's opinion in Citizens United. Several legal scholars said that the many disclosure requirements in the measure appeared to stand on firmer constitutional ground than the full bans on political commercials by foreign companies or government contractors. The court has frowned on speech restrictions aimed at specific speakers and leaned toward disclosure as a constitutionally permissible response to fears of corruption or undo influence. Still, Bradley A. Smith, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission and a leading legal critic of campaign-finance rules, noted that the court had often disapproved of indirect efforts to accomplish objectives it has already found unconstitutional -- such as, in this case, banning political commercials paid for by corporations. If he were arguing to overturn the proposed law, Smith said in an interview, he would quote the sponsors' denunciations of such spending 'over and over.' Some of the rules would impose far stricter regulations than those applied before the ruling. Current laws, for example, already ban 'foreign' corporations from buying political commercials. The court's majority left those rules in place, while signaling it might review them later. The proposals would expand that ban to apply to any domestic corporation with at least 20 percent foreign ownership, any corporation whose board included a majority of foreigners, or any corporation where ultimate control of political decision-making was exercised by a foreign company or government. Some of the measure's disclosure requirements could also deter corporations from political advertising. If a corporation paid for a political commercial, the company's chief executive would be required to appear at the end taking responsibility, just as political candidates must now do. If an advocacy group or trade association paid for a commercial, the biggest donor would be required to appear and the five biggest corporate contributors would be listed by name. The proposals also seek other novel ways to force more disclosure of corporate and interest-group contributions to advocacy groups that buy political commercials. It would force corporations and interest groups to set up political spending accounts and file reports of their activities. McCain, who is facing a conservative challenge to his re-election, has not had time to review the proposals, said his spokeswoman, Brooke Buchanan. 'Sen. McCain still believes that it is the people who should speak and not the corporations in choosing their leaders,' she said, 'But the Supreme Court has spoken.' 