A recent law review note, Kristie Lasalle, "A Prescription for Change: Citizens United's Implications for Regulation of Off-Label Promotion of Prescription Pharmaceuticals, 19 J. L. & Pol’y 867 (2011), copy here (Please see link below), puts an interesting twist on the First Amendment arguments against the FDA's ban against truthful promotion of off-label use. It analogizes between the FDA's vague and discretionarily enforced prohibition and the corporate campaign contribution limitations struck down in Citizens United v. F.E.C., 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010). While the article was written before the Supreme Court's decision in Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., 131 S.Ct. 2653, slip op. (2011), that Sorrell undertook review in a pharmaceutical detailing case that was more rigorous than your usual Central Hudson commercial speech case (something we noted here) (Please see link below) provides additional basis for the author's analogy to Citizens United - a non-commercial speech case.