The article is linked from the OP here. OP is narrowly focused on a particular one out of fourteen companies under investigation for unclear reasons. They don'

The article is linked from the OP here. OP is narrowly focused on a particular one out of fourteen companies under investigation for unclear reasons. They don't say whether they've tried similar analysis of any of the other form comments. If I had to make a wild guess, I'd say they expect more clicks here than with a more in depth investigation of everyone involved, for reasons left as an exercise to the reader. >Astroturf exists and is a problem on all sides, yes, but this specific instance is far beyond the pale. Which is presumably why it merits this year-long investigation. 14 organizations are under investigation, not just one. >But also beside the point. CQ claims they vetted their submissions for "questionable submissions". And also gives a few examples, all of which are trivial to bypass, and all of which are automated, so it's not clear why you'd think they are manually looking at any of these before submitting unless it fails the automated tests.