The same day that Democrats in Congress denounced ABC’s decision to briefly pull Jimmy Kimmel Live! off the air in response to pressure from Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr and the Trump administration, several Democrats introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United v. FEC, a 2010 Supreme Court decision that, ironically, protects the right to broadcast political speech. A month later, congressional Democrats sent President Trump a letter to “express serious concerns about [Trump’s] recent executive order, Designating Antifa as a Domestic Terrorist Organization, and the following presidential memorandum, Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence.”

The Trump administration’s open threat to weaponize the FCC against disfavored speech is a uniquely blatant example of government intimidation of speakers. And while the recent uptick in political violence presents a grave threat to freedom of expression that warrants thoughtful action, critics have raised legitimate concerns over the broad language and apparent ideological targeting within the Trump administration’s response.

To emerge from the current crisis with a stronger free speech culture and without damaging First Amendment rights, both parties will need to prioritize safeguarding civil society over shortsighted efforts to punish their ideological opponents. The history of leveraging government power against critics in the United States is long and full of shameful examples of abuse from politicians on both sides of the aisle. But, for those who have been paying attention to the “campaign finance wars” in recent decades, there’s a clear parallel between Republicans’ current focus on progressive nonprofits and Democrats’ post-Citizens United playbook.

After all, the rhetoric and free speech rights of conservative nonprofits were at the center of that long battle. While most of the Democrats’ anti-Citizens United talking points focus on for-profit corporations, their actions have almost exclusively targeted nonprofit speech. The fact that the plaintiff in the case was a conservative nonprofit banned from airing criticism of then-Senator and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton often goes unexplained by the decision’s critics. But Democrats’ response to the Supreme Court’s protection of nonprofits’ First Amendment rights was swift.

The DISCLOSE Act, first introduced as a direct response to Citizens United mere months after the 2010 decision, has become a fixture of congressional Democrats’ policy agenda. The goal of their legislation is to force nonprofits to publicly expose the names and home addresses of their supporters as a consequence of speaking about the actions of those in power. Democrats who fear Republicans are weaponizing federal law to target progressive nonprofits and donors would be wise to reconsider this policy goal.

At the same time, Republicans targeting the nonprofit status of progressive organizations would do well to remember the lessons of the IRS Tea Party scandal that emerged in the aftermath of Citizens United. Current Republicans’ public complaints about nonprofits being too “political,” the letters to the IRS urging investigation of specific organizations, and the recent legislative focus on “foreign influence” are taken directly from the playbook that set the stage for the IRS ramping up efforts to police nonprofit speech by conservatives after Citizens United.

At that time, roughly between 2010 and 2013, far more new conservative organizations were seeking nonprofit status, largely in response to the Obama administration’s policy agenda. Acting under immense political pressure from powerful Democrats, the IRS began slow-walking applications from conservative groups and asking extensive and invasive questions about their activities.

Similarly, Republicans’ shift toward seeking to empower the IRS to police nonprofit speech can largely be traced to the surge in progressive nonprofit spending to counter the Trump administration’s policy priorities. If Republicans are successful in leveraging the power of the federal government against progressive nonprofits, conservative organizations will undoubtedly face the consequences of elected officials’ shortsighted actions when power inevitably shifts in the future, just as progressive nonprofits are now facing the threat of the playbook put in place by Democratic politicians.

Making matters worse, recent reporting indicates that the Trump administration is planning what would be a considerable escalation in the weaponization of the IRS against the incumbent’s ideological opponents. If accurate and actualized, the current administration will establish a precedent that will enable a future Democratic administration to engage in targeting even more severe than the Tea Party scandal.

For Democrats now interested in protecting nonprofits and their supporters from government targeting, here are some suggestions:

• Abandon the failed DISCLOSE Act and related nonprofit donor exposure legislation.
• Stop trying to overturn First Amendment precedent protecting nonprofit speech.
• Support efforts to codify nonprofit donor privacy protections and prevent weaponization of agency power against tax-exempt organizations.

For Republicans looking to protect freedom of speech in the aftermath of recent political violence:

• Abandon the tit-for-tat nonprofit targeting strategy and reinvigorate your past commitment to protecting free speech and privacy.
• Pass the Speech Privacy Act, which protects nonprofits from targeted demands by federal agencies to hand over donor lists.
• Prioritize the unanimous priority legislative recommendation from the Federal Election Commission to redact donors’ street addresses from publicly available campaign finance databases.

The First Amendment was adopted with the clear-eyed understanding that there will always be politicians who seek to weaponize government control over speech against their critics, whether through the FCC, IRS, or any other powerful agency. Nonprofits are the backbone of civil society and have continued to bear the brunt of politicians’ stress testing of the First Amendment’s protections. With outright bans on speech largely off the table, donor disclosure and weaponization of agency regulations have become the preferred tools of those in power who seek to silence their critics.

Instead of contributing to a cycle of retribution and escalation, elected officials in both parties should enact policies that shield engaged citizens from both government intimidation and political violence.