SCORECARD · DON BACON accountability readout

Don Bacon dossier →

Republican U.S. House · NE-2 full conduct profile →
62/100
ELEVATED CAPTURE-RISK INDEX
How this number is built ↓
Silence risk25%
100
Contradiction risk25%
54
Connection density20%
41
Donor influence10%
87
Fact density10%
37
Constituency deviation5%
37
Voting misalignment5%
0

Weighted composite, 0–100. Identical to the figure on the Congress monitor. Each bar is the component's normalised 0–100 contribution before weighting.

01

Silence on donor-funded topics 10

Topics where donors have documented interests but the official has no public statement on record. Silence is the absence of expected speech — not proof of intent.

All silence flags for Don Bacon →
02

Vote-vs-platform contradictions 2

Roll-call votes that contradict the official's own stated platform commitments. Each links to the bill and the contradiction rationale.

22.2% of 9 rated votes contradicted the stated platform
  • H.R. 4 ↗ YEA 2025-06-12
    Rescissions Act of 2025
    why contradicted?
    [reversal] Three days prior, Bacon publicly pledged to vote 'no' if PEPFAR—a program he called 'noble' and 'George Bush's legacy'—was cut. He initially voted against the bill but switched to 'yea,' providing a decisive vote in the 214-212 passage. This reversal directly contradicted his stated commitment to protecting AIDS relief funding.
  • H.R. 1628 ↗ YEA 2017-05-04
    American Health Care Act of 2017 (Obamacare repeal/replace)
    why contradicted?
    [against_constituent] Bacon voted 'hell yes' to repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with a plan the CBO estimated would leave 14 million more uninsured. Nebraska's 2nd District has a median household income of $83,942 but a poverty rate of 7.2%—constituents who would have lost coverage or faced higher premiums. This vote aligned with party leadership and the insurance industry donor base while conflicting with constituent healthcare access.
Full voting record + platform comparison →
03

Broken promises 0

Documented public commitments paired with the documented action that broke them. Each carries a primary-source citation for the violation.

No documented broken promises on file.

04

Documented contradictions 1

Stated-position-vs-revealed-conduct contradictions analysed against the official's commitments, scored by strength of the contradiction.

  • reversal SCORE 90
    Three days after pledging to vote 'no' if PEPFAR was 'gutted,' Bacon initially cast a 'no' vote but then switched to 'yea' after receiving leadership assurances, despite the final bill cutting $400 million from the program. The House vote passed 214-212, making his vote decisive.
Contradictions ledger →

What this scorecard does and doesn't claim

Every figure above is a count of records the platform already holds, each click-through-able to its source. The scorecard adds no inference, no forecast, and no narrative — it aggregates what is documented.

A populated scorecard is not a finding of corruption. It documents the volume of stated-vs-revealed tension, donor-adjacent silence, and broken commitments on the public record for this official. Silence in particular is the absence of an expected statement; it can have innocent explanations and is never presented as proof. Read each item's source before drawing conclusions.

⌗ Cite this
Permalinkhttps://www.goblinhouse.net/scorecard/congress-b001298
CitationGoblin House. "Don Bacon — Responsibility Scorecard" (accountability scorecard). Goblin House — The Architecture of Secrecy. Accessed October 19, 2026. https://www.goblinhouse.net/scorecard/congress-b001298.

Sourced from public records and content-hashed; verify via /attestation, standard at /methodology.