As the political battle ensues to impose - or perhaps re-impose - restrictions on political speech by giant corporations, one key player will be Rep. Alan Grayson.

The Orlando Democrat, whose district encompasses parts of Ocala and much of eastern Marion County, was tapped by Democratic leaders in Congress to help rein in corporation's political influence following the high court's 5-4 ruling in Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission, the Huffington Post, a liberal Web site, recently reported.

The court's Jan. 21 ruling removed limits on corporate spending in elections.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi created a task force comprised of key committee chairmen and select lawmakers from those panels, according to the Huffington Post.

Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., confirmed in a recent interview that he had picked Grayson as part of his team.

In addition to Frank's group, lawmakers from the House Administration, Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce committees will also participate.

"He's a very smart guy and does good research - more than most members" of Congress, Frank said of Grayson.

That is important, Frank added, because this issue is "legal and intellectual," as well as political.

Supporters of the Citizens United decision - primarily Republicans and conservative activists - hailed it as a victory for the First Amendment and its most fundamental guarantee regarding political speech.Critics, such as Grayson, maligned it for allowing mammoth corporations to unleash the flow of money in backing candidates they like, or defeating candidates they don't.

They also raised the specter of spending by foreign companies unduly influencing elections.

Even President Barack Obama joined in, saying in his State of the Union speech just after the decision that "the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people."

Observers have said the ruling's impact could be felt as soon as this November's elections, with Democrats, whose popularity is waning, more likely to be targeted for defeat.

Congressman Frank also noted that Grayson was selected for having been out front on the Citizens United issue.

Even before the decision was made public last month, Grayson introduced six bills designed to counter the outcome.

Those measures, outlined as the "Save Our Democracy" platform, sought to:

1. impose a 500 percent excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees, and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns;

2. prevent companies making political contributions and expenditures from trading their stock on national exchanges;

3. prevent for-profit corporations that receive government funding from making political contributions, and limit how much employees of those companies can contribute;

4. require publicly traded companies to disclose in federal filings how much was spent to influence public opinion, instead of promoting their products and services;

5. apply antitrust law to industry political action committees;

6. require a majority of a public company's shareholders to approve any expenditure to influence public opinion on matters unrelated to the company's products or services.

Grayson also created a Web site with a petition supporting his bills that read: "We cannot have a government that is bought and paid for by huge multinational corporations. We need a government of the people, by the people, and for the people." As of Friday, it had registered 104,253 signatures.

Frank said his Financial Services Committee has oversight of "corporate governance" and the "decision-making process" exercised by big companies.

Within that, the task force will work on measures to make corporations more accountable to shareholders for electioneering decisions.

One such bill might include Grayson's proposal to force votes by shareholders on campaign expenditures, Frank said.

Another would mandate full disclosure of campaign financing activity.

Hearings on the bills will begin next month, Frank said.

On Thursday, Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York and Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland offered legislation that would widen the ban on election spending by foreign companies, outlaw political commercials funded by government contractors or recipients of bailout money and force corporations and unions to publicize details of their direct spending or what is passed through advocacy groups.

Though only a freshman, Grayson has generated some controversy for his criticism of Republicans during the health care reform debate and on other issues.

The GOP has made his comments and public displays of them a campaign issue.

Some potential Republican challengers for Grayson's 8th District seat, including state Rep. Kurt Kelly of Ocala, have called Grayson an ill fit for constituents in this part of Florida.

Frank said he's not concerned about Grayson's remarks or reputation.

In fact, he praised Grayson for his willingness to take on Republicans on some of these issues.

"We're not going to get much Republican support on this anyway. So why would I worry?" Frank said.

Grayson spokesman Todd Jurkowski indicated that Grayson was a natural choice by Frank.

"He has led the way in response to the Citizens United ruling. He submitted his Defend Our Democracy Platform to combat the impact even before the ruling was issued. His bills are clear, concise and practical. I would not be surprised to see most or all of them incorporated into the final bill," Jurkowski said.

Representatives for Citizens United could not be reached for comment.

But writing at The Politico Web site recently, David Bossie, the group's president, noted that several states already allow corporate donations to state candidates, and independent campaign expenditures by corporations.

Bossie added that the ruling did not upend an existing federal ban on such contributions to federal candidates, and criticized opponents of the ruling for ignoring government's defense in the case of criminal penalties for violating McCain-Feingold.

"The idea that the government must approve the content and timing of political speech upon threat of prison is inimical to America," he wrote. "Political speech, above all else, should be protected in this country."