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.

Similar bills have already passed legal challenges https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/eighth-circuit-upholds-...

I think it's a bad law and he's making a big mistake. I'm still a fan though.

Thanks for the link. Scary to see that the state is re-drafting these laws specifically to find loopholes in the constitutional definitions of freedom of speech. Check out this other loophole:

> The act does not apply to contracts worth less than $1,000, or to companies that offer to provide the goods or services for at least 20 percent less than the lowest price quoted by a business that has complied with the certification requirement.

So, a contractor if free to boycott as long as they cost the taxpayer a little bit less.

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