I think that once again BriBri has seen her pathetic fundraising numbers are nowhere near the million dollars she had in her mind where she was going to have a shiny office and a dozen minions scurrying around, all kowtowing to her and flattering her ego, but once again she's alone in the house having to organise things herself and come up with ideas about how to push the campaign forward.
The thing is that having a campaign that takes in millions of dollars takes
a lot of effort and work to both reach and sustain. Brianna is incapable of taking and keeping her campaign at this level even with Frank flailing behind the scenes to try to help her. Quite simply, Brianna has never put any type of long-term, sustainable effort into anything successful and that won't be changing any time soon given her behavior and habits. If he was a sympathetic person, Frank would probably deserve janitor's pay for having to clean up so much of Brianna's crap. Since he's not, I guess one could say he's getting what he rightfully deserves.
Also, viable candidates for any elected position needs to be personable, articulate, and charismatic in order to convince voters to support them with both money and votes. Brianna is none of those, does little to connect with the voters in her region, and runs her campaign as passively as she can without doing nothing at all. Yet, she continues to believe she can oust an incumbent that connects with his constituents and appears to be largely well-liked for that.
I have to say that the FEC must have almost no decent automation to catch these errors. Their computer systems must be complete shit. If you did this kind of thing with the UK inland revenue you'd get automated threatening letters immediately.
The computer systems of governmental agencies are probably best described as inconsistent at best. For example, labor unions are required to file a report with the Department of Labor. Prior to the requirement that the form be filed electronically, it was the case that leaving zero fields blank on the paper form would trigger a tersely-worded letter stating that any zero amounts must be explicitly stated. Similarly, if the beginning and ending balances didn't agree with the cash in and out over the prior year, another paragraph about properly balancing the numbers would appear on the letter. Commit too many of these errors and one could even expect a Federal audit/examination which is anything but pleasant. Thankfully, the new online reporting system has all but eliminated math errors. Perhaps the FEC needs to follow suit and require something similar.
To hear the FEC has no such basic crosschecking is a bit surprising, but not too shocking given what we know about government not being known for its efficiency and consistency across platforms/agencies. Then again, with certain Federal agencies being understaffed, it's very possible that Wu's campaign, having a relatively low volume of cash/donations each period and as a whole, simply hasn't reached a threshhold for further individual scrutiny compared to larger campaigns that may be mismanaging their funds and reporting.
I suspect what's happening is that they've got no automated system for levying and collecting fines for routine infractions and that everything has to have a human in the loop at some point. That means that it's not worth the FEC's time to collect from small time operators like Wu. I can't help but think that some system upgrades and a stricter policy would pay for itself if they had a mind to do it though.
I have no idea how the FEC system works. One would (
) think that any report submitted with math errors or other inaccuracies would trigger something and be flagged to appear on some sort of report of submissions having issues that need to be addressed. From there, an automated letter could be generated and sent, or a human could intervene and review the erroneous report in question and all other documentation to see if this is a one-time mistake that needs a simple correction, a pattern that merits stronger intervention, or a case of potential fraud or willful neglect.
It's also possible the compliance wheels move very slowly on the Federal levels. My state's treasury has three years to review tax returns and make adjustments for any obvious mistakes (someone inadvertently reporting $50 in dividends as opposed to $500, for example). At one point, the state was issuing notices that made these simple corrections -- and the corresponding change in taxes due -- at the very last possible opportunity even though these mistakes are so easy to detect and correct much sooner than that. It wouldn't surprise me if the FEC is just as slow in dealing with issues that are relatively trivial when the bigger potential for enforcement action comes from larger campaigns that misuse or misreport their funds.
As for Brianna being sued by Alex Jones, I can only wonder if Brianna's past identity as JF would somehow become relevant to question during any trial that may take place. If so, I can imagine Brianna being very nervous and eager to do whatever it took to avoid having her past dug up and put on the record.
