BadBills sends each bill’s title and full text to Jev model jev-1.13.0. The text is split into consecutive sections of up to 42,000 characters when needed. Jev answers both questions below for each section; section scores and confidence are combined by section length. Rankings use score multiplied by confidence.

Full question prompt

For each bill text section, the model receives: Bill title: [bill title], followed by Text section [number] of [total]: [section text].

Pork barrel spending

Question: To what degree does this bill represent pork barrel spending?

1. 0 - Non-spending / Not applicable: The bill contains no monetary allocations, federal appropriations, or government spending provisions (e.g., purely policy, procedural, or regulatory legislation).
2. 1 - Not pork barrel spending: The bill involves spending, but funds broad national programs, standard public goods, or competitively awarded grants. Costs and benefits are distributed broadly across the population without special carve-outs.
3. 2 - Minimal pork: The bill is primarily focused on general national policy or broad funding, but contains minor, transparent allocations for specific regional projects directly tied to the primary mission.
4. 3 - Moderate pork: The bill contains a noticeable blend of national legislation and targeted local earmarks. A portion of the funding is directed to specific local projects or special interests without competitive bidding.
5. 4 - Significant pork: The bill is heavily weighted toward localized, non-competitive funding. The benefits are overwhelmingly concentrated in specific representatives' districts or special interest groups, while the costs are borne nationally.
6. 5 - Pure pork barrel: The bill exists almost entirely to fund a hyper-specific local project or narrow special interest. It bypasses standard authorization/hearings, is non-competitive, and serves strictly local political or financial gains at national taxpayer expense.

Title misleadingness

Question: How misleading is the bill title about the purpose and scope of the bill text?

1. 1 - Not misleading at all: The title perfectly aligns with the bill's actual text, transparently reflecting its primary purpose, scope, and specific actions without exaggeration or omission.
2. 2 - Slightly misleading: The title is mostly accurate but relies on overly broad language or omits minor secondary provisions. It generally reflects the intent but lacks precision.
3. 3 - Moderately misleading: The title is vague, uses generalized buzzwords, or only describes a fraction of the bill's true scope. It gives an incomplete picture, masking significant provisions under a benign name.
4. 4 - Highly misleading: The title suggests a significantly different scope or purpose than the text dictates. It likely highlights a minor, popular provision while hiding major, unrelated mandates or sweeping changes.
5. 5 - Actively deceptive: The title is a complete misdirection. It implies an outcome contrary to the bill's actual effects, or hides entirely unrelated legislation behind an emotionally appealing or completely unrelated name.

Scores are model assessments, not official congressional classifications or legal conclusions.