> At my university, a portion of my dues went to funding BDS efforts

Surely you can protest that at the university and it is not a government-enforced policy?

> Substitute, for example, any domestic racial minority for "Israel"

Is "Israel" a race or a country? Should a Canadian not be allowed to boycott the US?

> Is "Israel" a race or a country? Should a Canadian not be allowed to boycott the US?

The legislation described does not prevent boycotts, except by government contractors who have a duty to government policy and thus do not necessarily enjoy those protections (https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47986):

> Speech restrictions imposed by private entities, and government limits on its own speech, usually do not implicate the First Amendment.

As for public investment funds: you'll need to explain to me how saying that X may not invest in Y because Y is refusing to buy things from Z, causes Y to stop being able to refuse to buy things from Z (i.e., compels Y to buy things from Z).

If you want to not buy things from Israel, then... just don't. You don't need my money, or a private investment firm's, in order to achieve that.

> Speech restrictions imposed by private entities, and government limits on its own speech, usually do not implicate the First Amendment

How does this apply to the matter at hand? The restrictions on doing business are being imposed on (not by) a private entity, by (not on) the government. The government is free to do business with Israel if it so chooses

As a private entity doing business with the government, why is it permissible to boycott other countries or entities, but not Israel?

>How does this apply to the matter at hand? The restrictions on doing business are being imposed on (not by) a private entity, by (not on) the government.

>requiring government contractors to promise that they are not boycotting Israel

I'm aware of what the law says. How does that justify such a law?

I don't really see any responses to any of the questions I have raised.

You originally asked how the provision holds up against the First Amendment. I showed how it is government contractors being restricted. Government contractors act on behalf of the government. I then showed how the First Amendment does not necessarily protect those who act on behalf of the government, because this is the government placing a limit "on its own speech".

I did not find anything about contractors in the link you provided and the excerpt did not apply.

Even if that were present, why should "Congress said so" have any meaning?

I am aware the judiciary has occasionally upheld the legality of such laws--just as they have upheld Civil Asset Forfeiture, Qualified Immunity, given us Citizens United, ended the Voting Rights Act, and sundry other decisions that will surely be judged well by future history.

Appeal to authority is not a convincing argument.