Washington (CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama on Monday incorrectly stated that a landmark campaign-finance ruling allows foreign entities to pour money into U.S. elections. It’s the second time he’s made such a claim, and this time it happened while he was promoting the Democrats’ DISCLOSE Act in a Rose Garden speech.

The Senate on Tuesday is taking up the legislation that would put strict new requirements on campaign advertising. The House already has passed a similar version of the bill.

“Tomorrow there’s going to be a very important vote in the Senate about how much influence special interests should have over our democracy,” Obama said. “Because of the Supreme Court’s decision earlier this year in the Citizens United case, big corporations -- even foreign-controlled ones -- are now allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money on American elections.”

Obama made a similar claim in his State of the Union Address, prompting Justice Samuel Alito to mouth the words “not true.” The majority opinion itself and liberal commentators attested that Alito was correct. (See earlier story)

Under the DISCLOSE Act, the Federal Elections Commission would require the CEOs of companies that run political advertisements to appear in the ad to say that he or she “approves this message.” The top funder of the political ad also would be required to appear in the commercial.

Critics say the DISCLOSE Act, with its "onerous" requirements, is intended to suppress the free speech of organizations before the mid-term election.

The bill also says that government contractors and companies that received bailout money from the $700-billion Troubled Assets Relief Program would be banned altogether from campaign advertising.

The legislation also would bar a company with more than 20 percent foreign ownership from advertising, even if that company employs thousands of U.S. citizens.

“The DISCLOSE Act would simply require corporate political advertisers to reveal who’s funding their activities,” Obama said. “So when special interests take to the airwaves, whoever is running and funding the ad would have to appear in the advertisement and claim responsibility for it -- like a company’s CEO or the organization’s biggest contributor. And foreign-controlled corporations and entities would be restricted from spending money to influence American elections -- just as they were in the past.”

The Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in Citizens United vs. the FEC lifted restrictions on companies, unions, and other organizations, allowing them to make independent expenditures in political campaigns.

That ruling, however, did not allow corporations to contribute directly to a campaign or to coordinate expenditures with a campaign. Nor did the ruling lift existing law that blocks foreign contributions to political campaigns.

Under the FEC regulation 11 CFR 110.20(i): “A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process of any person, such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization with regard to such person's Federal or non-Federal election-related activities, such as decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with elections for any Federal, State, or local office or decisions concerning the administration of a political committee.”

Further, federal law, under 2 USC 441-Sec. 441e, also prohibits foreign donations to political campaigns.

In the majority opinion in the Citizens United case, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation's political process.”

Shortly after the State of the Union Address, Adam Winkler, a law professor at University of California-Los Angeles, partly took Alito’s side. Winkler’s piece, posted on the liberal Huffington Post blog, was entitled, “Alito was rude (but right).” According to Winkler, “The president was wrong about the Supreme Court decision.”