February 10, 2026
I. Introduction
This Audit Report summarizes the audit results for the committee Chyanne Chen for Supervisor 2024, FPPC ID # 1466924 (the “Committee”), for the period January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024. The audit was conducted by Ethics Commission audit staff to determine whether the Committee materially complied with applicable state and local campaign finance laws during the November 2024 election.
II. Audit Authority
San Francisco Charter Section C3.699-11 authorizes the Ethics Commission (the “Commission”) to “audit campaign statements and other relevant documents” of campaign committees that file with the Commission. San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code (“C&GCC”) Section 1.150(a) requires the Commission to audit all committees of candidates who have received public financing and authorizes the Commission to initiate targeted audits of other committees at its discretion.
III. Objective and Scope
The objective of the audit was to reasonably determine whether the Committee materially complied with requirements of the San Francisco Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance (C&GCC Section 1.100, et seq., and supporting regulations) and the California Political Reform Act (California Government Code Section 81000, et seq., and supporting regulations).
The audit was conducted based on an analysis of the Committee’s filings and support documentation obtained from the Committee. A complete summary of the audit’s objectives and the methods used to address those objectives appears in Appendix A.
IV. Committee Information
The Committee qualified as a committee on March 2, 2024, as a candidate-controlled committee supporting the election of Chyanne Chen (the “Candidate”) to the office of District 11 Supervisor in the November 5, 2024, election. The Committee remains active as of January 2026.
Phuong Lisa Le served as the Committee’s treasurer (the “Treasurer”) for the full period covered by the audit and was the primary audit contact on behalf of the Committee during the audit.
For the period covered by the audit, the Committee reported receiving $403,261—including $143,434 in monetary contributions, $827 in nonmonetary contributions, and $255,000 in public financing—and making or incurring $369,003 in expenditures.
V. Material Audit Findings
Auditors identified the following material findings during the audit. These findings represent instances of noncompliance that Auditors determined to be significant based on the frequency of occurrence within a representative sample, or based on the significance of the dollar amount, the percentage of total activity, or the importance of the item to the purposes of state or local law.
Finding V-1. The Committee reimbursed employees more than 45 days after the original payments, did not receive all required documentation for reimbursements, and did not properly accrue expenses
Applicable Law
A committee may reimburse a volunteer or paid employee for expenditures made on behalf of the committee if the committee’s treasurer is provided dated receipts and written descriptions for each expenditure, and the reimbursement is paid within 45 calendar days of the expenditure being made. 2 CCR § 18526(a). If reimbursement is not paid within 45 days, the expenditure must be reported on the campaign statement as a nonmonetary contribution received on the 45th day after the date of the expenditure by the person to be reimbursed. Id. § 18526(d).
Committees must report an accrued expense as of the date on which the goods or services are received, and must report outstanding accrued expenses on each campaign statement until extinguished. 2 CCR § 18421.6(a)-(b).
Local law requires a committee to report the date of each expenditure required to be disclosed. C&GCC § 1.112(a)(4). For purposes of this section, an expense is incurred on the date the payment is made or the date consideration is received or performed, whichever is earlier, and an accrued expense is incurred on the date the debt or obligation is contracted. C&GCC Reg. § 1.112-1(a)-(b).
Analysis
Auditors reviewed a sample of 63 expenditures, including four expenditures to campaign employees Linshao Chin, who acted as the campaign manager, and Claire Lau for reimbursements of payments made on the Committee’s behalf. Based on a review of the support documentation for these expenditures, Auditors identified multiple subvendor payments associated with each expenditure that were reimbursed significantly later than 45 days. Reimbursement payments to Chin comprised a significant portion of the Committee’s spending activity, totaling $28,296 and amounting to 8.0% of the total $352,953 in itemized expenditures reported by the Committee. Auditors therefore expanded their review to all reported reimbursement expenditures to Chin. With the addition of a $549 expenditure to Claire Lau dated November 27, 2024, this finding concerns nine expenditures to Linshao Chin on four dates, as follows:
- A payment of $6,509 dated June 3, 2024;
- Three payments dated November 1, 2024, in the amounts of $457, $1,711, and $12,824;
- Three payments dated December 3, 2024, in the amounts of $406, $1,312, and $1,921; and
- Two payments dated December 16, 2024, in the amounts of $1,518 and $1,638.
Support records for these expenditures consisted of reimbursement reports completed by the respective employee and approved by the Candidate. Each report included a list of itemized expenses and attached receipts or invoices for those expenses. Auditors reviewed the attached support records for each payment to determine whether the payment was reimbursed within 45 days and included a dated receipt and written description as required by Regulation 18526.
Auditors identified a total of 109 subvendor payments totaling $21,389 (6.1% of itemized expenditures) that were reimbursed more than 45 days later, by an average of 54 days past the deadline. None of these payments were recorded as nonmonetary contributions on Schedule E of the Form 460 as required by Regulation 18526. In most cases, the employee seeking reimbursement submitted a reimbursement form comprising multiple months of payment activity. Auditors also identified 51 receipts and invoices totaling $10,980 for which the provided support documentation did not amount to a dated receipt and/or did not contain a description of the goods or services.
Notwithstanding the requirement that these payments should have been reimbursed within 45 days, or reported as nonmonetary contributions, the Committee should have reported as accrued expenses any amounts owed to an employee for payments they had incurred in a reporting period for which they had not yet been reimbursed. Pursuant to Regulations 18421.6 and 1.112-1, expenses should be accrued as of the date consideration was received, in this case when the employee paid the subvendor. Based on a review of the support records, Auditors determined that the amounts summarized in the table below should have been reported as accrued expenses to Linshao Chin beginning in the indicated reporting period and until those expenses were reimbursed.
| Agent Name | Reporting Period Incurred | Accrued Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Linshao Chin | 1/1/2024-6/30/2024 | $13,731 |
| 7/1/2024-9/21/2024 | $4,210 | |
| 9/22/2024-10/19/2024 | $1,810 | |
| 10/20/2024-10/30/2024 | $640 |
Appendix B to this report contains additional tables summarizing the specific subvendor payments discussed in this finding.
Committee Response to Finding
The Treasurer provided the following comment: “At the beginning of the campaign, we informed the campaign staff of requirements for both contribution and expenditure. The staff were community people and for them, this was their first campaign. Thus, when they submitted the reimbursement request late, we decided to reimburse them knowing that we would be late. We didn’t want their first experience in civic engagement to be a bad one.
We did our due diligence to make sure that we had receipts with name, date, amount and description. All the expenditure description were on the first page of the reimbursement request. In the instance, when we didn’t see a description, we inquired with the staff as to the expenditure’s purpose.”
Finding V-2. The Committee incorrectly reported subvendor expenditure dates
Applicable Law
Committees are required to report expenditures made by an agent or independent contractor of a committee of $500 or greater, other than expenditures for the agent’s or independent contractor’s overhead and normal operating expenses, as if the expenditures were made directly by the committee. Gov’t Code § 84303(a).
For each person to whom a committee has made an expenditure of $100 or more, the committee must disclose the full name and street address of the payee, the amount of each expenditure, and a brief description of the consideration received. Gov’t Code § 84211(k). Local law additionally requires a committee to report the date of each expenditure required to be disclosed. C&GCC § 1.112(a)(4). For purposes of this section, an expense is incurred on the date the payment is made or the date consideration is received or performed, whichever is earlier, and an accrued expense is incurred on the date the debt or obligation is contracted. C&GCC Reg. § 1.112-1(a)-(b).
Analysis
Auditors reviewed a sample of 31 of the 59 expenditures reported on Schedule G (Payments Made by an Agent) of the Form 460 and identified 14 expenditures (45% of the sample) for which the reported date was inaccurate. (An additional five transactions less than $500 that were not required to be reported pursuant to Section 84303(a) contained the same error.)
Based on a review of supporting receipts and invoices, Auditors determined that the discrepancy in each instance stemmed from the Committee reporting the date on which it paid the agent or employee, instead of the date on which the agent or employee paid the subvendor. Section 84303(a) requires payments by agents or independent contractors to be reported as if made directly by a committee, and local law requires committees to report expenditure dates as of the date consideration was received.
The table below summarizes the subvendor expenditures discussed in this finding:
| Agent | Payee | Reported Date | Date per Support Records | Reported Amount |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Growth Political Strategies | GetThru | 11/26/2024 | 10/31/2024 & 11/12/2024 | $825 |
| Linshao Chin | Garden Restaurant | 6/3/2024 | 3/23/2024 | $1,120 |
| New Asian Pearl | 4/22/2024 | $1,260 | ||
| Lai Hong Lounge | 4/29/2024 | $3,850 | ||
| Donald Commins | 10/22/2024 | 6/27/2024 | $8,000 | |
| Hung To Seafood Restaurant | 6/10/2024 | $2,000 | ||
| Spotlight Printing | 6/26/2024 | $1,586 | ||
| Spotlight Printing | 12/3/2024 | 10/15/2024 | $734 | |
| B&H | 12/16/2024 | 10/15/2024 | $110* | |
| B&H | 5/8/2024 | $175* | ||
| B&H | 5/30/2024 | $90* | ||
| B&H | 5/23/2024 | $100* | ||
| B&H | 6/10/2024 | $318* | ||
| B&H | 4/2/2024 | $500 | ||
| MJE Strategies LLC | Pacific Print Resources | 5/1/2024 | 4/25/2024 | $1,237 |
| Anne Walzer | 5/31/2024 | 5/13/2024 | $674 | |
| Anne Walzer | 5/13/2024 | $797 | ||
| Sing Tao | 6/25/2024 | 5/22/2024 | $800 | |
| Phuong Lisa Le | Cedric Cheng Design | 5/1/2024 | 4/18/2024 | $824 |
* Reported subvendor payments not required to be reported.
Committee Response to Finding
The Treasurer provided the following comment: “We misread the statement on the expenditure dates in the instruction. We thought the expenditure dates were the date that the agent or independent contractor incurred the expenditure.”
VI. Other Identified Findings
Auditors identified the following non-material findings during the audit. These findings represent instances of noncompliance discovered through review of the Committee’s filings and support documentation and through testing of sampled transactions that were determined not to be material in terms of frequency or dollar amount. This information is reported for the awareness of committees and treasurers and to facilitate the tracking of trends across audit reports.
Finding VI-1. The Committee did not appropriately report street addresses for several expenditures
Applicable Law
For each person to whom a committee has made an expenditure of $100 or more, the committee must disclose the full name and street address of the payee, amount of each expenditure, and a brief description of the consideration received. Gov’t Code § 84211(k). Local law additionally requires a committee to report the date of each expenditure required to be disclosed. C&GCC § 1.112(a)(4).
A street address means a real property’s street name, building number, city, state, and zip code. 2 CCR § 18250(a). Fair Political Practices Commission (“FPPC”) Advice Letter I-07-152 clarifies that a P.O. box does not qualify as a “street address.”
Analysis
Auditors performed a facial review of all 282 itemized expenditures reported by the Committee during the audit period on Schedule E (Payments Made) of the Form 460 for compliance with reporting requirements. Auditors identified 21 expenditures for which a P.O. Box was reported instead of a full street address as required by Section 84211(k) and Regulation 18250(a). These expenditures were associated with seven of the 37 total payees reported by the Committee.
The table below summarizes the expenditures discussed in this finding:
| Payee | Address | Date | Amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| AT&T Mobility | [PO Box, Carol Stream, IL] | 8/12/2024 | $110 |
| 9/21/2024 | $138 | ||
| 10/31/2024 | $69 | ||
| 12/16/2024 | $69 | ||
| PGE | [PO Box, Sacramento, CA] | 8/20/2024 | $54 |
| 9/16/2024 | $99 | ||
| 10/18/2024 | $134 | ||
| 11/19/2024 | $135 | ||
| 12/16/2024 | $127 | ||
| Political Data Inc. | [PO Box, Norwalk, CA] | 4/15/2024 | $1,600 |
| Recology Sunset Scavenger | [PO Box, Los Angeles, CA] | 8/12/2024 | $107 |
| 9/18/2024 | $165 | ||
| 10/18/2024 | $160 | ||
| 12/9/2024 | $407 | ||
| SF District 11 Democratic Club | [PO Box, San Francisco, CA] | 5/17/2024 | $300 |
| 10/28/2024 | $550 | ||
| SF Water, Power and Sewer | [PO Box, San Francisco, CA] | 8/9/2024 | $155 |
| 9/18/2024 | $48 | ||
| 10/3/2024 | $71 | ||
| 12/9/2024 | $169 | ||
| Wind Newspaper | [PO Box, San Francisco, CA] | 9/24/2024 | $2,060 |
Committee Response to Finding
The Treasurer provided the following comment: “We made multiple attempts to get the street address but got no response from the vendors.”
Finding VI-2. The Committee inaccurately attributed subvendor payment amounts in Campaign Statements and in Mass Mailing Itemized Disclosure Statements
Applicable Law
Under City law, each time a committee pays for a mass mailing, defined as 200 or more substantially similar pieces of mail that advocates for or against one or more candidates for City elective office, it must file a copy of the mailing and an itemized disclosure statement with the Ethics Commission within 5 business days. If the mass mailing occurs within the last 16 days before an election, then the committee must file the mailing within 48 hours of the date of the mailing. C&GCC § 1.161(b)(3)(A)-(B), id. 1.104, incorporatingGov’t Code § 82041.5. Committees comply with this requirement by filing Form SFEC-161. C&GCC Reg. § 1.161-1(a).
Committees are required to report expenditures made by an agent or independent contractor of a committee of $500 or greater, other than expenditures for the agent’s or independent contractor’s overhead and normal operating expenses, as if the expenditures were made directly by the committee. Gov’t Code § 84303(a). A subvendor who provides goods or services to or for the benefit of a committee must make known to the agent or independent contractor all of the information required to be reported by this section, who in turn must make that information known to the committee. Id. § 84303(b).
For each person to whom a committee has made an expenditure of $100 or more, the committee must disclose the full name and street address of the payee, amount of each expenditure, and a brief description of the consideration received. Gov’t Code § 84211(k). Local law additionally requires a committee to report the date of each expenditure required to be disclosed. C&GCC § 1.112(a)(4).
Analysis
Auditors reviewed a supporting invoice for an $18,558 expenditure to MJE Strategies LLC on October 24, 2024, for two mass mailings. The invoice listed a mass mailing with the job title “Closing – [English]/ [Chinese]” with a cost of $13,306 and a mass mailing with the job title “Closing – Spanish” with a cost of $4,798. Subvendor payments were listed below each item, in the amounts of $3,820 to Pacific Print Resources and $446 to PDI Data for the first mailer, and $2,034 to Pacific Print Resources and $111 to PDI Data for the second mailer.
The Committee filed the required Form SFEC-161 disclosures for each of these mass mailings, but did not correctly itemize the costs per vendor. It appears on both Form-161s that the Committee attributed costs to MJE Strategies that should have been attributed to PDI Data, which was not referenced on either disclosure.
The table below summarizes the mass mailing expenditures discussed in this finding:
| Mass Mailing Title | Vendor | Amount from Invoice | Amount reported on Form 161 |
|---|---|---|---|
| “Closing” English & Chinese Mailers | MJE Strategies LLC | $4,123 | $4,569 |
| PDI Data | $446 | Not Reported | |
| “Closing” Spanish Mailers | MJE Strategies LLC | $1,924 | $2,035 |
| PDI Data | $111 | Not Reported |
Similarly, from a sample of 44 subvendor expenditures reported on Schedule G (Payments Made by an Agent), Auditors identified four subvendor expenditures with misreported amounts as compared to the support documentation. The four expenditures were associated with three invoices from MJE Strategies for various advertisements.
For three reported subvendor payments to Anne Walzer dated May 31, 2024, and July 9, 2024, supporting invoices for “walk cards” indicate that the cost of each walk card consisted of a portion paid to Anne Walzer, a portion paid to Pacific Print Resources, and a fee paid to MJE. The Committee reported Walzer as the only payee for the full amount of each expenditure. Conversely, the Committee reported a $1,237 subvendor payment to Pacific Print Resources. The supporting invoice for window signs indicates a total cost of $1,362 consisting of payments to Pacific Print Resources and Walzer totaling $1,188, and a fee to MJE. It is unclear how the reported $1,237 amount was determined.
The reported subvendors and amounts are therefore inaccurate according to the information made known by the vendor pursuant to Section 84303. Consequently, total subvendor payments related to these three expenditures are over-reported for Walzer by $1,340, and under-reported for Pacific Print Resources by $933.
The table below summarizes the subvendor expenditures discussed in this finding:
| Agent | Expenditure Date | Reported Subvendor | Amount Reported | Subvendors per Invoice | Amount per Invoice |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MJE Strategies | 5/1/2024 | Pacific Print Resources | $1,237 | Anne Walzer | $125 |
| Pacific Print Resources | $1,063 | ||||
| 5/31/2024 | Anne Walzer | $674 | Anne Walzer | $200 | |
| Pacific Print Resources | $369 | ||||
| Anne Walzer | $797 | Anne Walzer | $300 | ||
| Pacific Print Resources | $369 | ||||
| 7/9/2024 | Anne Walzer | $794 | Anne Walzer | $300 | |
| Pacific Print Resources | $369 |
Committee Response to Finding
The Treasurer provided the following comment: “We did not review carefully the subordinate’s work in inputting the data.”
Finding VI-3. The Committee received contributions that were likely prohibited under the City’s contractor contribution prohibition
Applicable Law
Under local law, no City contractor or affiliate of a City contractor may make any contribution to a candidate for an office for which the individual holding that office, or the board on which such an individual serves, must approve the contractor’s contract, for a period of 12 months after the date of contract approval. C&GCC § 1.126(b)-(c).
An individual holding City elective office, or the clerk of the board on which such an individual serves, must notify the Ethics Commission by filing Form SFEC-126 within five business days of the approval of each contract by the relevant officer or board. Id. § 1.126(f)(4), C&GCC Reg. § 1.126-4(a)-(b).
Pursuant to the contribution ban in Section 1.126, a committee will meet due diligence requirements if the contributor certifies under penalty of perjury, in writing, including in an electronic format, that the contributor does not meet the aforementioned criteria in Section 1.126. C&GCC Reg. § 1.126-7.
Analysis
Utilizing Form SFEC-126 filing data made publicly available on the Ethics Commission’s website, Auditors compared the affiliates and subcontractors reported by the Board of Supervisors to the contributors disclosed by the Committee. Auditors identified four contributors who appeared to be listed as either affiliates or subcontractors to contracts that were approved by the Board of Supervisors. Because the Candidate was a candidate for the office of District 11 Supervisor, these contributions appear to have been prohibited by the City’s contractor contribution prohibition.
Notwithstanding, Auditors verified that the Committee included the language specified in Regulation 1.126-7 on contributor cards and its online contribution landing platform, and the Committee thereby likely met the due diligence requirement of Regulation 1.126-7.
The table below summarizes the contributions discussed in this finding:
| Contributor/ Affiliate Name | Contractor Name | Contract Approval Date | Contribution Date | Contribution Amount |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Donald Luu | Chinese Hospital Association | 12/15/2023 | 3/19/2024 | $500 |
| Kathleen Coll | CARECEN | 7/25/2023 | 5/2/2024 | $100 |
| Jenny Lam | San Francisco Unified School District | 7/24/2023 | 6/29/2024 | $150 |
| Dickson Sum | Self-Help for the Elderly | 3/21/2024 | 10/10/2024 | $500 |
Committee Response to Finding
The Treasurer provided the following comment: “We were not aware of Form SFEC-126 or how to locate it on the SFEC website. We did our due diligence in researching the internet and contacting the donors on their involvement with the City. Going forward we are wondering if there can be more training on the contractor contribution prohibition ie. what is form SFEC-126, how to search it, etc… in the treasurer and candidate training.”
Auditor Comment
Though the Commission’s Campaign Finance & Reporting Training for candidates and treasurers references the contractor contribution prohibition and provides links to guidance pages on the Commission’s website that reference the Form SFEC-126, Auditors acknowledge that the Commission’s training does not specifically discuss the Form SFEC-126 or how filing data may be searched. In connection with the 2026 elections, Commission compliance staff have provided an explainer to candidate committee treasurers regarding the Form SFEC-126 datasets, and have been made aware that more information about this form has been requested. Auditors thank the Treasurer for her suggestion.
VII. Conclusion
Except as noted in the audit findings sections above, and based on the evidence obtained, Auditors conclude that the Committee substantially complied with the requirements of the California Political Reform Act and the San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code. The Committee was provided a copy of this report and an opportunity to respond. The Committee’s comments are included in this report alongside the relevant finding.
This report and the support documentation on which it is based will be forwarded to the Commission’s Enforcement Division for further investigation and/or enforcement action as warranted. The scope of the audit is not exhaustive of all conduct of the Committee during the audit period, and any subsequent enforcement action may include conduct not covered in this report.
This Audit Report is intended to provide information about the Committee’s activities and its compliance with campaign finance requirements to the Commission, the Committee and its Treasurer, and San Francisco voters. This report, and all Audit Reports prepared by the Commission, will be posted to the Commission’s website at sfethics.org.
Appendix A
Objectives and Methodology
Audit Objective 1
Determine whether disclosed campaign finance activity materially agrees with activity in the Committee’s bank account.
Methodology:
- Calculated total reported contributions and expenditures in the Committee’s filings and total reported credits and debits in the Committee’s bank statements.
- Applied adjustments as needed to account for variations in transaction reporting between sources.
Audit Objective 2
Determine whether the Committee accepted contributions from allowable sources and in accordance with limits, appropriately disclosed those contributions, and maintained required contribution records.
Methodology:
- Reviewed contributions submitted for public funds matching for compliance with limits and accuracy of contributor information.
- Selected a statistically significant sample at a 95% confidence level and a 3.5%margin of error based on the total number of reported contribution transactions. Selected samples for testing from a range of periods, sources, and payment methods.
- Reviewed each sampled transaction for compliance with state and local requirements regarding contribution restrictions, disclosure, and recordkeeping.
- Performed additional targeted testing of contributions identified through analysis of filing data and support records.
- Utilized automated procedures to analyze data extracted from the Committee’s filings. Identified contributions from prohibited sources and late-reported transactions. Verified identified noncompliance against support records.
Audit Objective 3
Determine whether the Committee made expenditures for allowable purposes, appropriately disclosed those expenditures, and maintained required expenditure records.
Methodology:
- Selected a statistically significant sample at a 95% confidence level and a 3.5%margin of error based on the total number of reported expenditure transactions. Selected samples for testing from a range of periods, sources, amounts, vendors, and agents.
- Reviewed each sampled transaction for compliance with state and local requirements regarding expenditure restrictions, disclosure, and recordkeeping, including any expenditures made to subvendors by agents or contractors of the committee.
- Performed additional targeted testing of expenditures identified through analysis of filing data and support records.
- Utilized automated procedures to analyze data extracted from the Committee’s filings. Identified late-reported transactions and verified identified noncompliance against support records.
Audit Objective 4
Identify any other evidence of potential noncompliance for inclusion in the audit report or referral for further investigation.
Methodology:
- Analyzed data extracted from the Committee’s filings.
- Analyzed support records obtained from the Committee.
Appendix B
Supplemental Tables to Finding V-1
Table B-1. Subvendor payments related to the $549 expenditure to Claire Lau dated November 27, 2024:
| Subvendor Name | Payment Date | Amount | Reimbursed after 45 days | No dated receipt or description | Reporting period end date | Not properly accrued |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lyft | 4/15/2024 | $30 | X | 6/30/2024 | <$100* | |
| Lyft | 6/7/2024 | $29 | X | |||
| Lyft | 8/14/2024 | $26 | X | 9/21/2024 | <$100 | |
| Central Ace Hardware | 8/17/2024 | $13 | X | |||
| Lyft | 9/21/2024 | $18 | X | |||
| Lyft | 9/24/2024 | $31 | X | 10/19/2024 | <$100 | |
| Lyft | 9/26/2024 | $28 | X | |||
| Lyft | 10/6/2024 | $28 | X |
* Instructions to Schedule F note that if the total amount owed to an employee for a given reporting period was less than $100, a committee is not required to report that amount as an itemized accrued expense but should include that amount in the Schedule F summary total.
Table B-2. Subvendor payments related to the $6,509 expenditure to Linshao Chin dated June 3, 2024:
| Subvendor Name | Payment Date | Amount | Reimbursed after 45 days | No dated receipt or description | Reporting period end date | Not properly accrued |
| The Garden Restaurant | 3/23/2024 | $1,120 | X | X | 6/30/2024 | |
| Amazon | 4/3/2024 | $43 | X | |||
| New Asian Pearl | 4/22/2024 | $1,260 | X | |||
| Lai Hong Lounge | 4/29/2024 | $3,850 | X |
Table B-3. Subvendor payments related to the three expenditures to Linshao Chin dated November 1, 2024, in the amounts of $457, $1,711, and $12,824:
| Subvendor Name | Date | Amount | Reimbursed after 45 days | No dated receipt or description | Reporting period end date | Not properly accrued |
| Amazon | 6/4/2024 | $21 | X | 6/30/2024 | X | |
| Hung To Seafood Restaurant | 6/10/2024 | $2,000 | X | |||
| Department of Elections | 6/10/2024 | $474 | X | |||
| Department of Elections | 6/12/2024 | $15 | X | |||
| American Button Machines | 6/12/2024 | $132 | X | |||
| Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club | 6/25/2024 | $250 | X | |||
| Spotlight Printing | 6/26/2024 | $1,586 | X | |||
| Donald Commins | 6/27/2024 | $8,000 | X | |||
| City of Sacramento | 7/1/2024 | $29 | X | 9/21/2024 | X | |
| Thimble | 7/1/2024 | $73 | X | X | ||
| Amazon | 7/1/2024 | $25 | X | |||
| City of Sacramento | 7/2/2024 | $21 | X | |||
| J&J Hardware | 7/3/2024 | $13 | X | |||
| Costco | 7/3/2024 | $177 | X | |||
| Chef Hunan | 7/4/2024 | $58 | X | |||
| Amazon | 7/8/2024 | $9 | X | |||
| Amazon | 7/10/2024 | $36 | X | |||
| Amazon | 7/11/2024 | $10 | X | |||
| Peet’s Coffee | 7/13/2024 | $62 | X | |||
| Hing Yuan Dim Sum | 7/21/2024 | $22 | X | X | ||
| Hing Yuan Dim Sum | 7/21/2024 | $24 | X | X | ||
| Hing Yuan Dim Sum | 7/21/2024 | $24 | X | X | ||
| Hing Yuan Dim Sum | 7/21/2024 | $11 | X | X | ||
| [Not Specified] | 7/21/2024 | $11 | X | X | ||
| Hing Yuan Dim Sum | 7/28/2024 | $45 | X | X | ||
| [Not Specified] | 8/3/2024 | $15 | X | X | ||
| Hing Yuan Dim Sum | 8/4/2024 | $23 | X | X | ||
| Ming Kee Restaurant | 8/4/2024 | $51 | X | X | ||
| [Not Specified] | 8/4/2024 | $24 | X | X | ||
| [Not Specified] | 8/4/2024 | $34 | X | X | ||
| [Not Specified] | 8/11/2024 | $24 | X | X | ||
| [Not Specified] | 8/11/2024 | $34 | X | X | ||
| Woo Hao Chinese Restaurant | 8/17/2024 | $1,275 | X | X | ||
| [Not Specified] | 8/18/2024 | $26 | X | X | ||
| [Not Specified] | 8/18/2024 | $38 | X | X | ||
| [Not Specified] | 8/18/2024 | $24 | X | X | ||
| [Not Specified] | 8/18/2024 | $14 | X | X | ||
| Metro | 8/20/2024 | $92 | X | |||
| Metro | 8/20/2024 | $95 | X | X | ||
| Hing Yuan Dim Sum | 8/25/2024 | $16 | X | X | ||
| Hing Yuan Dim Sum | 8/25/2024 | $81 | X |
Table B-4. Subvendor payments related to the three expenditures to Linshao Chin dated December 3, 2024, in the amounts of $406, $1,312, and $1,921:
| Subvendor Name | Date | Amount | Reimbursed after 45 days | No dated receipt or description | Reporting period end date | Not properly accrued |
| Amazon | 4/3/2024 | $43 | X | 6/30/2024 | X | |
| Amazon | 4/30/2024 | $14 | X | |||
| Amazon | 5/21/2024 | $13 | X | |||
| Amazon | 7/20/2024 | $9 | X | 9/21/2024 | X | |
| Ming Kee BBQ | 8/11/2024 | $73 | X | |||
| Pacita’s Salvador-ean Bakery | 8/18/2024 | $17 | X | |||
| Amazon | 8/28/2024 | $13 | X | |||
| Dragon Beaux | 9/4/2024 | $676 | X | X | ||
| Hong Kong Bakery | 9/15/2024 | $46 | X | X | ||
| Hong Kong Bakery | 9/15/2024 | $46 | X | X | ||
| Sweet Delight Bakery | 9/21/2024 | $20 | X | |||
| Hing Yuan Dim Sum | 9/22/2024 | $63 | X | X | 10/19/2024 | X |
| Spotlight Printing | 10/4/2024 | $106 | X | |||
| Pacita’s Salvador-ean Bakery | 10/5/2024 | $19 | X | |||
| Hing Yuan Dim Sum | 10/6/2024 | $37 | X | X | ||
| Hing Yuan Dim Sum | 10/6/2024 | $64 | X | X | ||
| Pho Golden | 10/8/2024 | $17 | X | |||
| Taqueria Guadalajara | 10/8/2024 | $14 | X | |||
| Hong Kong Bakery | 10/13/2024 | $35 | X | X | ||
| Hing Yuan Dim Sum | 10/13/2024 | $33 | X | X | ||
| J&J Hardware | 10/15/2024 | $23 | X | |||
| Spotlight Printing | 10/15/2024 | $628 | X | |||
| Safeway | 10/15/2024 | $6 | X | |||
| USPS | 10/16/2024 | $22 | X | |||
| USPS | 10/16/2024 | $157 | X | |||
| Hong Kong Bakery | 10/19/2024 | $20 | ||||
| Hong Kong Bakery | 10/20/2024 | $8 | 10/30/2024 | X | ||
| Hong Kong Bakery | 10/20/2024 | $37 | X | |||
| Hong Kong Bakery | 10/20/2024 | $11 | ||||
| Hing Yuan Dim Sum | 10/20/2024 | $80 | X | |||
| Do Eat Restaurant | 10/20/2024 | $30 | X | |||
| Taqueria Vallarta | 10/22/2024 | $75 | X | |||
| Hong Kong Bakery | 10/26/2024 | $52 | X | |||
| Hong Kong Bakery | 10/26/2024 | $23 | ||||
| Hing Yuan Dim Sum | 10/27/2024 | $15 | ||||
| Hong Kong Bakery | 11/5/2024 | $15 | 12/31/2024 | |||
| Flats Burgers | 11/5/2024 | $881 | X |
Table B-5. Subvendor payments related to the two expenditures to Linshao Chin dated December 16, 2024, in the amounts of $1,518 and $1,638:
| Subvendor Name | Date | Amount | Reimbursed after 45 days | No dated receipt or description | Reporting period end date | Not properly accrued |
| B&H | 4/2/2024 | $500 | X | 6/30/2024 | X | |
| B&H | 5/8/2024 | $175 | X | |||
| B&H | 5/23/2024 | $100 | X | |||
| B&H | 5/30/2024 | $90 | X | |||
| B&H | 6/9/2024 | $318 | X | |||
| Amazon | 8/28/2024 | $14 | X | 9/21/2024 | X | |
| Metro | 8/28/2024 | $82 | X | X | ||
| Staples | 9/2/2024 | $173 | X | |||
| Safeway | 9/3/2024 | $32 | ||||
| Amazon | 9/7/2024 | $21 | X | |||
| J&J Hardware | 9/7/2024 | $20 | X | |||
| Metro | 9/8/2024 | $29 | X | X | ||
| Hing Yuan Dim Sum | 9/8/2024 | $72 | X | X | ||
| Hing Yuan Dim Sum | 9/8/2024 | $25 | X | X | ||
| eBay | 9/11/2024 | $4 | X | |||
| Best Buy | 9/11/2024 | $166 | X | |||
| Amazon | 9/12/2024 | $61 | X | |||
| Hing Yuan Dim Sum | 9/15/2024 | $44 | X | X | ||
| Amazon | 9/20/2024 | $51 | X | |||
| Amazon | 9/22/2024 | $28 | X | 10/19/2024 | X | |
| Amazon | 9/27/2024 | $28 | X | |||
| Hing Yuan Dim Sum | 9/29/2024 | $61 | X | X | ||
| Amazon | 10/4/2024 | $18 | X | |||
| Princess Bakery Cafe | 10/5/2024 | $45 | X | |||
| Safeway | 10/5/2024 | $75 | X | |||
| Safeway | 10/6/2024 | $20 | X | |||
| Safeway | 10/6/2024 | $50 | X | |||
| Taqueria Guadalajara | 10/8/2024 | $47 | X | |||
| Hing Yuan Dim Sum | 10/13/2024 | $84 | X | X | ||
| B&H | 10/15/2024 | $110 | X | |||
| Best Buy | 10/25/2024 | $166 | X | 10/30/2024 | X | |
| Pho Golden | 10/25/2024 | $104 | X | X | ||
| Unspecified | 10/26/2024 | $39 | X | X | ||
| Safeway | 10/31/2024 | $15 | X | 12/31/2024 | ||
| Hong Kong Bakery | 11/2/2024 | $45 | X | |||
| Hong Kong Bakery | 11/3/2024 | $36 | X | |||
| Hong Kong Bakery | 11/3/2024 | $41 | X | |||
| Hong Kong Bakery | 11/5/2024 | $30 | X |