That wasn't the question.
It sort of was. That is the creeping nature of government intervention.
If I recall correctly the bonus restrictions were added after the bailout was already underway.
If they had received the bailout with notice that there would be restrictions on how they used the bailout money up front, I wouldn't have any problems with the restriction.
As is, I think the government should not have added restrictions to how the money was used. Why should they be able to modify a contract after it is already signed and executed?
It's like telling your neighbor you'll lend him $20 bucks (without asking why but understanding he intends to pay you back), then after lending it to him, giving him a call later that day saying, "You can't use the $20 bucks to buy beer, and since money is fungible, you can't buy any beer until you pay me back. If you do, then I'm going to fine you." Obviously you don't have the power to fine him, but the government does.
If I appear to be ignoring your posts, it's probably because you are on my ignore list.