What kind of proof do you require?
Well, for one:
- An article whose own TITLE doesn't begin with the word REPORTEDLY, meaning that they are merely repeating hearsay information.
- An article which doesn't advertise open bias and crassness by referring to a book I never heard of as "Shitty." Vulgarity is not acceptable in professional, ethical media.
- Doesn't spend half the article back-peddling over irrelevancies about Trump's personal life.
- Doesn't assign their own negative conclusions about reasons and motives they don't truly know in reporting actions as a way of trying to mold what the reader thinks of them.
- Dwells on further irrelevancies like Trump ending an interview after 45 minutes that Joe Biden wouldn't even have given in the first place.
- Includes lies about things it cannot know like HOW, WHERE or WHY Trump contracted a virus to further influence the reader's thinking rather than just reporting the facts.
- Goes on at length about things that have nothing at all to do with a supposed shortfall in election money.
Looking at the original article from the AP which you should have just linked directly to, apparently most of their case is based on the allegation that Trump bought advertising in questionable markets which didn't pay good dividends like a Superbowl ad or some ads in DC., which if true is just bad campaigning, not a crime, some of it goes back almost a year ago, has little bearing on a shortfall today, and suggests that maybe they need someone better to direct the spending.
It's hard to separate fact from spin in an article that spends so much of its space in just bashing Trump with much of it centered on irrelevancies and hearsay.