Some background from the National Journal on Monday:

A big problem for Schumer and Van Hollen is that it's a lot harder than it looks to clamp down on big-spending corporate interests without sweeping up politically active progressive groups friendly to Democrats, including unions..."It's a really hard piece of legislation to [write] to be able to get at the 'bad' influence and not the 'good,' however that's defined," said Abby Levine, deputy director of advocacy programs at the Alliance for Justice, a progressive umbrella group...Alliance officials have been meeting with congressional aides in a bid to write legislation that responds to Citizens United "in a way that does not limit constitutionally protected and very useful and needed advocacy," she said.

In other words, they were assisting congressional aides in figuring out a way to squash the free speech of those they consider 'bad' influences, while protecting those they consider 'good'. Did they find one? To the Washington Post:

Leading Democrats proposed bills Thursday that would impose broad disclosure requirements on corporations and unions that help fund political advertising, setting the stage for a debate over campaign financing in the run-up to the 2010 midterm elections...The bills are aimed at blunting the impact of a January Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which permits companies and unions to spend unlimited funds for or against political candidates...Unable to overturn a decision made on constitutional grounds, the Democrats are hoping to take advantage of another part of the ruling that upheld the legality of stringent disclosure requirements for political spending.

A quick reminder:

Center for Competitive Politics President Bradley Smith: “The First Amendment says ‘Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech,’ not ‘Congress should protect some speech, but feel free to hyper-regulate the political speech of businesses and nonprofits.’”

And then to Reuters:

Some Democrats believe companies and organizations will be too timid to risk adverse publicity if they are required to identify themselves as sponsors of political campaigns. But Van Hollen said that was not the legislation's intent. "The premise is that voters have a right to know who is spending money to influence elections," he said. "This requires disclosure, it requires sunshine, and with sunshine and transparency come accountability."

Squashing speech through intimidation? No way, that's not the legislation's intent, that's just "some Democrats" talking. Hmmm, are there any examples of these Democrats?

"My view is that many CEOs of major organizations will [air ads] if they don’t have to disclose, but once they have to come up front and disclose, they will not do it," Schumer said.

Oh...so according to the author of the Senate bill, this is an effort to lessen, diminish, or curtail speech by major organizations. Is there a word for that? Ah, yes, the word is abridge.

To John Samples in USA Today:

Americans should have no illusions about the Disclose Act: It's on the congressional docket because the Democratic leadership fears electoral disaster in November...These new requirements will expose more donors to retribution from incumbent politicians. The sponsors of the bill may also hope that forcing disclosure will lead to a backlash by customers or shareholders against businesses or groups...In other words, the authors of Disclose apparently hope to chill the speech of their political opponents.

Such silence would be a shame. Spending money to express a political view harms no one. Voters rightly have the power (and responsibility) to accept or reject what they hear. But Congress should not decide for the voters what speech might be heard, even when the way to discourage debate is "only disclosure."

...The Disclose Act is a cynical partisan ploy that violates the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment. Voters deserve better.

and closing with Senator McConnell, who perhaps remembering his oath to "support and defend the Constitution," had this to say:

"Make no mistake about it, the campaign finance bill introduced this morning is not about reform, transparency, accountability or good government," McConnell said in a statement. "It is about election advantage, plain and simple. An effort to disregard the First Amendment and defy the Supreme Court in order to limit the speech of those who may disagree with you is an effort that has no place in this country."

Good oath, that.