So it's only illegal if accompanied by speech, thereby making a specific speech illegal. Isn't that a first amendment violation?
I think there's a stronger case that your purchase choice is covered as free expression or that the government can't compel you to do business with a private entity.
You can do both without doing business with the government though, so legality is not questioned.
Of course, there is a ton of gray area here that the courts will have to rule on, but the whole point the ACLU is making is that they believe these anti-boycott laws are in violation of the first amendment.
"Actually free speech means you can lose government contracts or you job as a government employee too"
You know, at least I think China is a bit more honest about how they approach this question.
It could totally be a slippery slope towards the government amassing more power and then granting contracts only to those who parrot the party line, but I believe the solution to that is to reduce government size and power.
And also, I don't find your position so controversial that you'd need a throwaway account.