I’ll try to give a more detailed reply tomorrow, but here are a few starting ideas.
Anyone trying this should crack the books to find out exactly what the rules are. They dinged Brad for some really petty stuff - an occupation of "Not Employed/Not Employed" is OK but "None/None" is citable.
There are some math errors we could complain about too; if anyone's actually going to file a complaint I could dig them up again.
Yes, basic math errors are definitely something that will draw the FEC’s attention. Look for totals that don’t add up, numbers that are incorrectly carried over to subsequent reports, etc.
Also make sure that all of the disbursements and loans that Frank made and were later repaid are correctly notated with memos. As you noticed from Brad’s RFAI, the FEC really loves to find minor autistic shit to complain about, and it’s something that they’ll pay attention to.
That's interesting, because none of this is declared in her FEC accounts.
Did you just confess in writing that Wu is spending undeclared money on her campaign? Do you realise that's a crime?
I’d wait until the July report to see if paid canvassers are on the report. They should either be on there as a disbursement and/or a debt owed. She tweeted about getting on the ballot in mid-April, which means the expenses would likely be on the upcoming report. Now that we’ve mentioned it, there’s a 99.9% chance they’ll be on there.
The disbursements may be a good target, but I’d need to know more than I do about what kinds of nonsense are actually legally acceptable. I know “real” campaigns get away with a lot of shenanigans, though.
Ignore all of the tech purchases and unused office rental shit that we like to laugh about.
If you’re looking at expenses, focus on travel expenses that appear to have no legitimate campaign purpose. Check her reports to verify that no money was raised at that location during that time. Cross reference it with social media activity showing what she was actually doing. It has to look painfully obvious that the trip was for personal benefit to get public attention. The Porsche thing, if true, would be fucking perfect.
You can also search the FEC complaint database to see what past complaints have looked like. This will show how to structure a complaint and how the FEC acts on them.
You will have to make this really solid with multiple, crystal clear violations to make the FEC care. You can always tack on things she’s already been cited for in the complaint.
Remember that nothing will likely legally happen as a result of this. Look up Duncan Hunter or Quico Canseco for how bad things have to get before people start to pay attention.
The only real reason to do this, in my opinion, is so there is something formally in the public record about how poorly Wu ran a shitty campaign. It’s more ammo to show how this person is just a perennial loser and grifter. I think that this in and of itself is a noble goal, but it’s not my name going on the complaint.
