Democrats expanding the scope of law enforcement might not have been on many people’s 2023 legislative bingo cards — but neither was the prospect of Washoe County Republicans and Las Vegas Democratic Socialists testifying against the same bill. 

Assemblywoman Sandra Jauregui (D-Las Vegas) has introduced AB117, which would give law enforcement agencies some new tools — and $5 million — to combat “domestic terrorism.”

On its surface, a bill to fight domestic terrorism and violent extremism is an appealing idea given the recent rise in partisan contempt and political turmoil. And with supporters pointing to the proliferation of right-wing militia groups — like the Boogaloo Movement and The Proud Boys — it’s easy to see why progressive groups like Battle Born Progress were quick to support it. 

However, not everyone was on board — and with good reason. 

Bruce Parks, the chairman for the Washoe County Republican Party, submitted testimony urging lawmakers to reject the bill on the grounds that such law enforcement efforts could be weaponized against otherwise peaceful activists.

“We have already witnessed the heavy hand of government when the FBI was investigating parents that spoke out at school board meetings as ‘domestic terrorists,’” wrote Parks, referencing an FBI attempt to track threats to school board members and administrators during the turmoil of school reopenings in 2021. 

For the record, the FBI actions were a bit more nuanced than merely labeling dissatisfied parents as “domestic terrorists.” However, Parks’ primary concern — that law-abiding citizens could become caught up in politically motivated investigations — was nonetheless well reasoned. 

In fact, it was a concern shared by none other than the Las Vegas chapter of Democratic Socialists of America. 

“A list of FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests revealing the full extent of the harm committed by these [domestic terrorism] task forces has been published by the ACLU in recent years,” argued one member in written testimony. “[These] task forces rarely go after right wing groups, despite the fact that nearly all political violence stems from these groups. Instead, they targeted mostly peaceful left-wing protesters, in groups ranging from Climate activists to Black activists …”

Like Park’s assertion that the FBI was labeling parents as terrorists, the implication that only the political “right” poses any real threat is lacking critical nuance. Political violence, as it turns out, comes from all sides of the political spectrum. According to researchers at George Mason University, for example, there seems to be a growing threat from what the FBI describes as anarchist violent extremism — which encapsulates groups as ideologically diverse as anti-government anarchists to anti-capitalist radicals.

The argument over “right” or “left” wing terrorism, however, should be beside the point. Trying to cram the complexity of extremist politics into binary partisan terms obfuscates the main concern from those who testified in opposition to AB117: That those in power could use the (generally weak) connections between violent extremists and broader ideological movements as a justification to crack down on political opponents.

And it’s a concern that should be taken seriously. 

A particularly egregious example of such politically motivated harassment is the way Martin Luther King Jr. was targeted by the FBI as he led the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s — to the point where authorities even attempted to blackmail him and convince him to commit suicide. And while the campaign against King stands out for its brutality, it’s clear that it wasn’t an isolated incident of authorities targeting peaceful political actors for surveillance and investigation. 

In the early days of the global war on terror, for example, federal authorities focused heavily on tracking and surveilling peaceful anti-war protestors. Authorities even collected the names, addresses and vehicle registration information of individuals who attended certain protests — tagging them as potential threats — despite no evidence of criminal activity, destruction of property or disorderly conduct. 

Such misuse of power shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone — least of all to progressives, who have routinely bemoaned the politicized, prejudiced and unjust nature of America’s criminal justice system. As Attorney Dayvid Figler pointed out on Twitter, progressives should understand better than anyone the danger of legislation that “expands criminal definitions and affords greater discretion to law enforcement and prosecutors.”

And that’s what’s wrong with AB117 at its core: It awards law enforcement substantial funds and new tools to combat “domestic terrorism,” but it does so without instituting any substantive guardrails to keep authorities from unintentionally (or intentionally) harassing nonviolent, minority political movements. 

While Las Vegas Socialists and Washoe County Republicans clearly disagree on the partisan implications of domestic terrorism task forces, they are nonetheless both concerned about the erosion of what should be a basic American freedom: The freedom to engage in political activism without harassment from a government ready to label political minorities as radical, extreme or even dangerous. 

Considering how many common political views were once considered radical, extreme or even dangerous, that seems like a freedom even the current majority ought to be able to support emphatically. 

Michael Schaus is a communications and branding expert based in Las Vegas, Nevada, and founder of Schaus Creative LLC — an agency dedicated to helping organizations, businesses and activists tell their story and motivate change. He has more than a decade of experience in public affairs commentary, having worked as a news director, columnist, political humorist, and most recently as the director of communications for a public policy think tank. Follow him at SchausCreative.com or on Twitter at @schausmichael.