The link to Advertise Here[1] at the bottom of the page does reveal a little bit of what it's for.
> The LII offers a variety of sponsorship opportunities to individuals and organizations interested in supporting our efforts to publish online legal collections, the widely-read, objective case previews and timely decisions delivered in our LII Supreme Court Bulletin, our applied research in legal information and online publishing, and our efforts to grow understanding of law through innovative methods like crowd-sourced legal analysis.
50 USC 1702(a)(1)(A) explicitly authorizes the President (under the appropriate circumstances) to "prohibit", among other things, any transactions in foreign exchange with a particular country.
If a US person is doing business in said country (necessarily using that countries' banking system) it would be a violation.
The conditions that would authorize the imposition of penalties have not been triggered. Yet.
IANAL, but the closest I could see (with a friendly interpretation) would be:
investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States;
So, a factory in China is the "property in which any foreign country...has any interest", and the President could block any transactions involving that property.
So the effect would be that the US companies would have to abandon their investments in China? I guess this could be offset by US seizure of Chinese investments in the US. But US investments in China are much greater, so it seems like trading a knight to capture a pawn.
