Comment by JustLurking2022
2 years ago
That sounds like an attempt to ban political expression that is certainly protected by the First Amendment.
2 years ago
That sounds like an attempt to ban political expression that is certainly protected by the First Amendment.
Wyden knows such a bill wouldn't pass specifically because of its unconstitutionality. This was about picking up media coverage by throwing red meat at voters.
Congress has been in a state of deadlock for too long to pass any actual laws, so this type of performative theater ahead of midterm elections is what passes for statesmanship.
That's awfully generous. He co-sponsored a bad law that he didn't actually want to see passed?
He may definitely want to see it passed. But elected officials should not be engaging in pushing bills that won't pass their first legal challenge.
2 replies →
It’s already pretty much the law. You can submit your complaints to the Office of Anti-Boycott Compliance [1].
Foreign governments can’t force government contractors to comply with boycotts. This bill AFAIK simply closes the loophole of Palestine not technically being a foreign government.
[1]: https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/enforcement/oac
That's not the same thing. This isn't about foreign government demands, it's about US states being legally able to discriminate against contractors who participate in BDS. (Edit: in fact it's about contractors who refuse to sign a pledge that they won't ever participate in BDS)
Well established ban, since you cannot discriminate anymore or voluntarily associate anymore as a business