Here is one opinion:
I imagine that the legal answer to that question depends on a nice distinction between practice and plain language. Under the plain language of the statute, interpreted imaginatively, the Fed can extend credit, upon the right showing, to any company or individual, and so why not insist on conditions on the loan? Heck, why couldn’t EPA, in the name of fishable swimmable rivers (that’s Clean Water Act language), ban all pesticides, including dishwasher detergent, or nationalize water users like the steel industry? Maybe it can! Which might be good news for environmental activists.
I thank David Zaring for the pointer to this very interesting analysis. So far I haven’t seen a more detailed post, nor has Google, but please let us know in the comments if you are aware of other serious treatments of the question. The question is justifying the ownership, not the lending. I’ll update this post if I learn more of relevance. I’ve also posed the query over at Volokh.com. Marty Lederman adds comment. Eric Posner thinks it is fishy and that the "collateral" for the loan would legally count as a sale.