I don't really think it is that cut and dry.

Case in point, a similar bill (as I understand it) - The EARN IT Act was spearheaded by the same people as this bill, plus Dianne Feinstein (Democraft of CA):

"The EARN IT Act was introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham (Republican of South Carolina) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (Democrat of Connecticut), along with Sen. Josh Hawley (Republican of Missouri) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Democrat of California) on March 5."

https://www.theverge.com/interface/2020/3/12/21174815/earn-i...

Also:

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/03/17/earn-m17.html

Feinstein is widely despised by progressives for, among other things, being a hawk. That she would also be anti-freedom here is not a huge surprise.

There's plenty of others like her. Neither party seems to have many in congress who want the government to have less dragnets and power to micromanage.

I think there's quite a few Democrats like that, actually, but certainly not all.

There are a bunch of Republicans too.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Caucus

Of course, nothing is ever black and white. I did not mean to imply all of the GOP is terrible and the other side is good. I am merely stating, looking from afar, it's the GOP politics that seems most familiar, in general.

"Republicans" in this case is not the entire GOP, but rather only three politicians who also happen to be Republicans. There are probably plenty of other Republicans who would support this, and plenty who would not. And probably plenty of Democrats who would support it, and plenty who won't.

Hopefully the won't category will be much larger than the will category, but I doubt the support will be exactly along party lines.

Both parties push that. This case happened during clinton for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States

This is the real problem with america. Not that one party is evil but that both parties are, there is no choice.

While both parties are certainly beholden to big donors, I think the equivalency argument ends there.

When it comes to issues of money in politics (e.g. campaign finance), issues of government transparency (e.g. financial disclosures), or environmental protection, the differences are night and day.

You do have a point about civil liberties though. Both parties have become pretty extreme (on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum) about where to draw the line between acceptable/unacceptable discourse. I fear that the Dems have become too toothless to take on big tech companies due to the vast sums they receive from said companies. Nevertheless, anti-cryptography legislation still seems to be the GOP's play these days. The Dems of the 1990s are hardly equivalent to the Dems of 2020, especially with an ascendant activist wing running more and more of the show.

Democrats increased the spying powers and war budget of a President they genuinely believed to be a Russian puppet.

Well, there is also the possibility was that they were exaggerating the degree to which they actually believed he was a puppet.

Democrats impeached a President over something they didn't really believe was true.

They didn't impeach him over "suspicion of being a Russian puppet". They impeached him because he attempted to abuse his power to coerce a foreign government to investigate his political rivals. Note, even the withholding of the funds was illegal because Congress had approved it. This is without the shakedown tactics that he employed on top of it. Let's not rewrite history so quickly.

Democrats paid foreign spies to generate fake evidence, then used that fake evidence to start an investigation into political rivals during an election year which included but was not limited to wiretapping top level campaign officials. The Ukraine investigation was in direct response to the Russia investigation, they are tightly coupled. They clearly do not have a legitimate problem with his behavior, since they had done the same thing themselves. Additionally, it's not clear they believed the claims in the articles of impeachment any more than the claims made during the Russia investigation. This is not an endorsement of Trump or anything he has ever done.

Well, your idea was that they were acting erratically and irrationally, my proposition is that they may just be putting on a show. Neither alternative is particularly flattering.