[SSS Two]

If I understand this (and I am not a lawyer so chances are I don’t) it is unlawful for ANYONE to inform another party that “unless you do this, I am going to do that” just about no matter WHAT the “this” and “that” are.

That does indeed seem to be the point here. But it is obviously wrong:

Unless you offer a home warranty, I won't buy your house.

Unless you put new tires on the car, I'll buy a car someplace else.

Unless you replace the property management team, I won't commit to being a limited partner.

Unless you can ensure no one will put ketchup on their scrambled eggs, I won't come to your brunch.

Seemingly, all of these statements would be illegal in Ted Cruz's world.

[wastoute]

I think the difference is in the examples you give is that they are two parties both entering an agreement voluntarily. CNN just dropped a real threat of physical violence on a nearly random dude.

[joegoeny]

That does indeed seem to be the point here. But it is obviously wrong:

Unless you offer a home warranty, I won’t buy your house.
Unless you put new tires on the car, I’ll buy a car someplace else. No I will burn your house down with you in it.

Unless you replace the property management team, I won’t commit to being a limited partner. No I will make sure you are swimming with the fishes with concrete goulashes!

Unless you can ensure no one will put ketchup on their scrambled eggs, I won’t come to your brunch. No I will make you swallow every ketchup bottle and then I will take a sledge to your stomach!

Seemingly, all of these statements would be illegal in Ted Cruz’s world. No it is the implied threat of bodily harm, get it?!!