We discover alignments of views between interest groups (lobbies) and members of the European Parliament (MEPs) by automatically analyzing their texts. Specifically, we do so by collecting novel datasets of lobbies’ position papers and MEPs’ speeches, and comparing these texts on the basis of semantic similarity and entailment. In the absence of ground-truth, we perform an indirect validation by comparing the discovered alignments with a dataset, which we curate, of retweet links between MEPs and lobbies, and with the publicly disclosed meetings of MEPs. Our best method performs significantly better than several baselines. Moreover, an aggregate analysis of the discovered alignments, between groups of related lobbies and political groups of MEPs, correspond to the expectations from the ideology of the groups (e.g., groups on the political left are more aligned with humanitarian and environmental organisations). We believe that this work is a step towards enhancing the transparency of the intricate decision-making processes within democratic institutions.

We propose an interpretable model to score the subjective bias present in documents, based only on their textual content. Our model is trained on pairs of revisions of the same Wikipedia article, where one version is more biased than the other. Although prior approaches based on bias classification have struggled to obtain a high accuracy for the task, we are able to develop a useful model for scoring bias by learning to accurately perform pairwise comparisons. We show that we can interpret the parameters of the trained model to discover the words most indicative of bias. We also apply our model in three different settings by studying the temporal evolution of bias in Wikipedia articles, comparing news sources based on bias, and scoring bias in law amendments. In each case, we demonstrate that the outputs of the model can be explained and validated, even for the two domains that are outside the training-data domain. We also use the model to compare the general level of bias between domains, where we see that legal texts are the least biased and news media are the most biased, with Wikipedia articles in between.