-Wolfson . . . challenges the main argument the justices have made to give less protection to commercial speech, the most important of which is the claim that the latter's truth or falsity is 'more verifiable' than the truth of political speech. . . . In contrast, the professor argues that the line between commercial speech and political speech is impossible to draw. . . . Wolfson offers plenty of evidence to show that SEC censorship does more harm than good. He likens battles for control of corporations to corporate democracy. . . . We can be grateful that bureaucrats haven't found a way to ban the good Prof. Wolfson from voicing his cogent opinions about how the Constitution is supposed to protect markets and ban censorship. —L. Gordon Crovitz Barron's

-The author offers a critique of the regulation of corporate speech and examines the SEC's powers in the control of corporate information, arguing that the Supreme Court's distinction between political-artistic speech and corporate speech is erroneous. He delineates the doctrine of commercial speech and outlines the court cases that have determined the status of SEC speech. There is an analysis of the law and economics literature on commercial speech. —Business Information ALERT