I know what you are trying to say here Julian, but it doesn't quite meet the mark. We have enough dilution of meanings today.
The origin of the political usage of the word "pork" begins with an old expression- "...I can bring home the bacon..."
By "bringing back" Federal dollars for district specific local projects
, which creates jobs and contracts for potential voters as well as economic stimulation for other voters to see, elected
officials can then (during the next election campaign) point out their successful past efforts at "bringing home the bacon".
In your case Julian, neither the Attorney General nor the F.B.I. Director are elected officials with a local constituency to deliver jobs or other economic benefits to (the historic and specific definition of political "pork").
You assert that "conservative christians" are a kind of constituency in this case. But there is no economic benefit to be had by them, unless you believe that this "Squad of Ten" will be succesful in banning some pornography and that the people who would have spent money purchasing that porn will then spend that money on "conservative christian" products and services.
Please don't dilute and render meaningless a perfectly good political term like "pork". With all the words in the English language, I am sure you can find one that would better meet your needs in this case.
Having said that:
Should this type of programme really be a high priority for the Federal government?
Absolutely not! Moreover, I think it should be a zero priority item and should be abandon forthwith.
Is this campaign necessary, or is it just another flavour of pork? ("Bacon", perhaps?)
This "campaign" is neither "pork", nor "Bacon", or even remotely "necessary."