If you're arguing about this setting a precedent - the precedent has already been set, which is the point that Sen. Franken was making in the above quote. The argument could be used for whatever - like cutting highway funds to states that don't raise the drinking age. They did that, long before Sen. Franken did.
This is nothing new. There's no precedent being set - just a standard argument that politicians have been using forever. About this specific amendment, do you have any problem with it?
No, you are wrong. The precedent he specifically mentioned was a government to government issue. This is a gov to business issue. It is an expansion and intrusion and Sessions was right to call him on it.
So, you're arguing that the government shouldn't be allowed to put any restrictions into contracts with private companies?
That's a rather terrifying thought.
Please point to any place where I actually wrote that.