Ep. 17 Are You Trying to Kill Me?

Ep. 17 Are You Trying to Kill Me

[AI VO] (0:00 - 0:31)

Before we start, a quick heads up. Some of the voices you'll hear reading documents in this podcast are AI generated, but the words are real. They come straight from public records, produced by real people inside government.

Further, if you're a public employee who's been asked to bend the rules, or if you've seen something that just doesn't sit right, we want to hear from you, confidentially, off the record. Your identity stays with us. You can reach out to us at contact at thepublicrecordsofficer.com.

[Kruse] (0:32 - 0:54)

So now you're getting people all riled up in the Seattle Times about the fact that this woman, who's a hateful, bigot, horrible person, is going to be at this event, and I'm going to be there, and Brian's going to be there. So now, an event that I otherwise would not have hired security to go with me to, I'm going to have to hire security to go with me to. So I was just mostly upset by that.

It's like, are you trying to get me killed? You probably would be happy if I died, but are you trying to get me killed?

[Nixon] (0:57 - 3:34)

You're listening to the Public Records Officer podcast, where we fight for your right to know. Now, here's your host, Jamie Nixon. Hello and welcome.

This is the Public Records Officer podcast. I am your host, Jamie Nixon. Today, recording today, May 12th, 2026.

I normally don't put the dates on there, but this one's kind of date sensitive, so I'm going to go with the date. Today, May 12th, 2026. The Seattle Times published a story that appears to have made Brandi Kruse's hair catch on fire.

And I know it doesn't take much to make her hair catch on fire, but this one, it really has her kind of worked up. This is no small fire, right? The story concerns a complaint filed with Washington's Public Disclosure Commission against Let's Go Washington, which is millionaire Brian Haywood's conservative political organization.

The complaint alleges Let's Go Washington failed to report the value of political advertising and in-kind support it received from Brandi Cruz and her platform. Now, I know that sounds super fucking dry, right? It's a process story.

And I know these things can kind of make people's eyes glaze over, but don't let that happen here. I know it's a PDC complaint. It's campaign finance, in-kind contributions.

Some people don't even know what the fuck that shit is. I get it. But this is an important story, and I'm going to explain to you why it's important and why you shouldn't care.

One of the main things to take away from that is that this is not just about Brandi. I mean, Brandi would have you believe otherwise. It's not just about Let's Go Washington either.

It's not even about these two ballot initiatives that Let's Go Washington is funding, dealing with transgender girls in school sports and parental rights and education. It's about something bigger than that, in a sense. This is about small d democracy.

And what happens when campaign finance law runs headfirst into this new influencer economy that we're all getting comfortable with, so to speak? What happens when podcasting, activism, hate appearances, advertising, native content all get tossed into the same blinter? And what happens when someone who makes a living attacking other people suddenly discovers that disclosure laws may apply to her own conduct?

Spoiler alert, she does not take it well. So this is from Brandi Kruse's May 11th, 2026 program.

[Kruse] (3:34 - 3:47)

And I know I'm having a big buildup because it's part of me. I'm trying to calm myself down because I'm so upset over what is going to be an effort to either try to ruin my reputation or get me killed.

[Nixon] (3:47 - 4:17)

I mean, there it is. We're two and a half minutes into her little martyrdom thing here and we're already at, they are trying to ruin my reputation or get me killed. Not, I disagree with the complaint or, you know, this complaint misunderstands Washington campaign finance law or, you know, I look forward to responding to the PDC's investigation in full.

No, no, no, no, no, no. We went straight to they are trying to get me killed.

[Kruse] (4:18 - 4:21)

Try to ruin my reputation or get me killed.

[Nixon] (4:22 - 4:45)

I suppose I shouldn’t laugh. I mean, in the environment we're in, you know, political violence isn't funny, but this as a response to a PDC complaint, like filing a PDC complaint is not a threat of violence. It's not a legal defense.

It's certainly not going to help her with the PDC.

[Kruse] (4:45 - 4:47)

Try to ruin my reputation or get me killed.

[Nixon] (4:47 - 5:22)

And it matters because this is the central move that Brandi makes in this whole little spiel of hers. She takes a PDC complaint, you know, a legal enforcement mechanism that exists so people can raise concerns about campaign finance compliance in the state. And she turns it into an assassination adjacent persecution narrative.

And it is, and Brandi's telling, this is not really about disclosure. You know, it's not really about political advertising. It's not really about whether Let's Go Washington should have reported the value of her promotional activity.

No, it is about Brandi.

[Kruse] (5:22 - 5:25)

Try to ruin my reputation or get me killed.

[Nixon] (5:25 - 10:16)

It's about her reputation, her safety, courage, her enemies, her sacrifice, you know, her brave and historic struggle against the terrible oppression of being asked whether campaign finance laws apply to monetize political promotion. Now, I do want to be really clear. No one should be threatening Brandi Cruz. 

No one should be harassing Brandi Cruz or trying to intimidate her or threatening violence against her. That is wrong. And anybody doing that should knock it off. 

But a PDC complaint is not violence, nor is it a threat to commit violence or a call to commit violence. The Seattle Times asking questions is not violence. Any newspaper reporting about a PDC complaint is not violence. 

A watchdog group asking regulators to review whether campaign finance laws are being followed is just a process. It's not violence. That's the boring, unsexy machinery of democracy at work in the background. 

That's all that is. And if your first response to that machinery is, they're trying to get me killed, maybe the problem is not that everyone else is being too dramatic, right? Maybe your persecution meter needs, you know, servicing or some shit. 

Therapy might be what you need. Now, let me slow this down a bit because Brandi, again, wants everyone to believe this is about one thing. She supports keeping trans girls out of girls sports and her enemies want to silence her for that. 

That's what this is for her. She goes into this diatribe in this episode, her May 11th show about this, right? And that's fine. 

I mean, I'm not here to agree or disagree with her position on that issue. This is not what this is about. Because again, that is not what this is about.

This PDC complaint isn't about that. You know, this is the version that plays well with her audience, right? It generates all those valuable clicks that she wants.

You know, it's the victim thing. But the complaint doesn't say that. The complaint doesn't say Brandi is not allowed to have an opinion. 

It does not say Brandi is not allowed to support initiatives. It doesn't say Brandi is not allowed to criticize Democrats or the Seattle Times or whoever else made it on her personal enemies list this week. The complaint says something much more specific. 

It alleges that Let's Go Washington received valuable political advertising from It argues that Brandi is not merely a private citizen with an opinion. That she is a commercial advertiser, she sells ads, and that she sells native advertising. She promotes sponsors through her show, her social media platforms, and public appearances. 

And that her repeated promotion of Let's Go Washington initiatives, including calls to sign petitions, event appearances, and attacks on opponents, may have had reportable value under Washington's campaign finance law. That is the issue here. Not whether or not Brandi can speak. 

Of course she can speak. We may find that speech to be annoying as fuck and hard to tune into, but she can speak. The question is whether this activity crossed the line into reportable political advertising or in-kind support. 

And that's exactly the kind of question the PDC exists to review. This is exactly what campaign finance disclosure is for. If you want to know who is influencing elections, how value moves through campaigns, and whether political messages are independent commentary or part of a broader campaign operation, that's what the PDC is here to help us figure out. 

This is a bigger question than whether or not Brandi and Let's Go Washington have done anything wrong here. It's a question of whether or not Washington's campaign finance system can handle modern political influencers. It's actually an incredibly timely complaint that will help answer some questions that are now facing these kinds of content creators. 

Now, Brandi does eventually get into and describe the legal theory behind the complaint to some degree. It takes her about 14 minutes into the episode to do that. But here's where she kind of gives her audience the brief rundown of what she thinks is happening here. 

[Kruse] (10:16 - 10:56)

Let's Go Washington, and you can see it with the PDBC, they've never paid me a cent. And this group knows that. They can't argue that because the spending would be in there.

So what they're saying is because I am an advertiser, right, we have run ads on the show, that when I cover Let's Go Washington, when I tell you I support the initiatives, here's how you can sign them, that that is essentially an in-kind contribution to Let's Go Washington. Now, that's hilarious, right, because then the Seattle Times editorial board, or you would have to say then any time that Let's Go Washington or Brian Haywood does an interview with the Seattle Times, it's an in-kind contribution to his campaign. It's insane on its face.

[Nixon] (10:56 - 13:28)

OK. That is the closest that Brandi gets to the real issue. And she is right about one thing.

If this were simply a matter of a commentator saying, I support an initiative, I agree that that alone should not become a reportable campaign contribution. Right. I mean, we would all be reporting shit to the PDC if that were the case.

Right. Any voter, anybody who weighs in on a matter would have to report. And that's obviously absurd.

That's not what this is about. If someone has a podcast and says, I support this ballot measure, that shouldn't automatically trigger campaign finance reporting either. That would be absurd as well.

But that's not the full allegation here. The allegation is not simply Brandi says she supports something. The allegation is Brandi operates a monetized political media platform.

She sells advertising, provides native advertising, lists sponsors. And one of the sponsors, Future 42, is connected in the complaint to Brian Haywood's broader political ecosystem. She appears at Let's Go Washington events.

She promotes signature gathering locations. She urges viewers to sign petitions. She repeatedly directed people to Let's Go Washington's website while attacking opponents of the initiatives.

And she allegedly did this at a scale and frequency that may have created measurable political advertising value for Let's Go Washington. That is not the same thing as a newspaper interviewing Brian Haywood. It's not the same thing as a random citizen posting.

I support this initiative. The complaint is asking whether Brandi's conduct in context looks less like independent editorial commentary and more like valuable political promotion from a commercial advertising platform. It's certainly possible the PDC will reject this theory.

Brandi may win. I won't be shocked if she does, honestly. This is a tough case.

Maybe the PDC says existing legal protections for broadcasters, editorial commentary, and media figures cover this. Or that there just isn't enough coordination. Or maybe they'll say the valuation of the promotions is simply too speculative or doesn't rise to the level necessary for the PDC to engage in some enforcement action over the matter.

All of that's possible. But none of that makes the complaint illegitimate. It doesn't make it lawfare.

This isn't some kind of murder plot.

[Kruse] (13:28 - 13:31)

Try to ruin my reputation or get me killed.

[Nixon] (13:31 - 15:08)

And this is where Brandi's response is kind of revealing. If she were completely confident that this complaint was nonsense, the easiest response in the world would be something like, I have not been paid by Let's Go Washington. I believe the complaint misunderstands the law.

I look forward to the PDC dismissing it. Boom. Done.

You don't have to give the complaint any more press. You don't have to give them any more time. Let the world speculate as they will to what Brandi did or didn't do wrong or right.

But that's not how Brandi deals with these kinds of things. This is something Brandi was praying for. She loves this stuff.

Instead of simply saying, I look forward to defending myself, she builds this rhetorical cathedral of victimhood. You know, the media are useful idiots. Democratic operatives are behind it.

Oh, the Seattle Times is participating in a hit job against me. It's an effort to ruin my reputation. And then she suggests it might get her killed.

Okay. Well, so much for the legal analysis, which is not what that is. I mean, this is all just fucking brand management. 

I am the brave truth teller being hunted by the regime. Good Lord. Then this whole shtick has been profitable for her from the beginning.

It's predictable and truly exhausting. I think even Joan of Arc would tell Brandi, hey, Brandi, you think maybe you could take like 25% off the top there? Brandi also goes on to say this at one point in her episode yesterday. 

[Kruse] (15:09 - 15:31)

So now you're getting people all riled up in the Seattle Times about the fact that this woman who is a hateful bigot, horrible person is going to be at this event and I'm going to be there and Brian's going to be there. So now an event that I otherwise would not have hired security to go with me to, I'm going to have to hire security to go with me to. So I was just mostly upset by that.

It's like, are you trying to get me killed? You probably would be happy if I died, but are you trying to get me killed?

[Nixon] (15:31 - 16:06)

That is an extraordinary claim to make. Just a crazy thing to say. You probably would be happy if I died.

About the Seattle Times, about a reporter, about people reporting on a public event she agreed to emcee. Again, safety concerns are real. Public figures receive threats.

Women in media especially receive disgusting abuse. And none of that should be minimized, but it is deeply irresponsible to claim without evidence that a newspaper article or PDC complaint is effectively an attempt to get somebody killed.

[Kruse] (16:06 - 16:09)

You probably would be happy if I died, but are you trying to get me killed?

[Nixon] (16:09 - 17:08)

Especially when Brandi then turns around and uses her platform to name, shame, and inflame her audience against other people. After this story came out, Brandi posted about Pam Stewart, the communications liaison for Washington's for ethical government, and is also a Sammamish city council member. She posted Pam's photo, her public official email.

She called the complaint lawfare and slander. And then she wrote, quote, oh, Pam, life is going to come at you fast, unquote. Now, I'm not going to overstate what she might have meant by that.

I'm not going to say that it is a direct threat, but it is certainly ominous language. It is irresponsible and escalatory language. And it is very rich.

Coming from someone who hours earlier was suggesting that ordinary public scrutiny might get her killed.

[Kruse] (17:08 - 17:11)

You probably would be happy if I died, but are you trying to get me killed?

[Nixon] (17:11 - 17:48)

That is the self-righteous, two-faced hypocrisy at the center of Brandi Cruz's whole shtick. When criticism is directed at Brandi, it's dangerous. When Brandi directs fury at someone else, that's accountability.

When Brandi is named in a news story, that is a target being placed on her back. When Brandi names Pam Stewart to hundreds of thousands of followers and says life is going to come at her fast, well, that's just free speech, baby. Free speech for me and accountability for thee.

Am I right, Brandi?

[Kruse] (17:49 - 17:51)

Try to ruin my reputation or get me killed?

[Nixon] (17:52 - 23:14)

Now, let's talk about this defamation thing for a moment, because Brandi is very upset about defamation. She says people are trying to ruin her reputation. She says this complaint is slanderous.

She says she had to deal with a federal defamation lawsuit. But Brandi also has this habit of using serious labels for others that gets incredibly close to, you know, defamation, including at me. In the last year, Brandi has twice publicly called me a stalker.

Now, this might be shocking to you, but I am not the most litigious person in the world. I know. The guy with the podcast called the Public Records Officer, who has a collection of PDFs large enough to make my Adobe reader sick just looking at it.

I'm not rushing off into court every time someone says something dumb online about me. But let's not pretend words only matter when Brandi is the subject, which is what Brandi would have us do. Right.

Stalker isn't just some schoolyard insult, Brandi. It is a felony crime in Washington. It's a very serious accusation.

When a public figure with a large platform like you uses that label about a named person engaged in lawful public records activity, political criticism, or open government advocacy, that is not nothing. So maybe, you know, just spitballing here. The person currently giving lectures about defamation and reputational harm should remember that she is not standing outside the glass house.

And here's another important point. You see, Brandi wants to be treated as a journalist when it benefits her. An activist when it benefits her, private citizen, commercial media businesses, when she sells ads, a victim when somebody scrutinizes those ads.

She wants all the benefits of influence and none of the accountability that comes with that influence. Sorry, that's not how this works. If you build a platform around politics, you're selling advertising, hosting events, appearing at rallies, you know, you do not get to act shocked when someone asks whether disclosure laws apply to you.

I mean, I guess you can, but you don't look like a fucking dickhead doing it. I mean, you can argue that those laws and rules don't apply. You could probably even win that argument, but the question isn't illegitimate just because you don't like it.

And if the law is too outdated to deal with influencer-driven political advertising, then maybe the law needs to be updated. And that's what mature democracies do. Brandi could get behind an update on the laws.

You know, democracies adapt, but what they don't do is whine and cry about lawfare every time someone fills out a form. Now let's talk about why this matters beyond Brandi because, you know, she's not the center of the universe, even though she wants to be. But I do think that while the Seattle Times piece did its thing today, it didn't really go long on explanation as to the stakes here.

The old campaign finance world is easier to understand, right? A campaign bought a newspaper ad. A PAC pays for a mailer or a radio spot.

You know, the money gets moved, the ad appears, and all the disclaimer rules apply. Modern politics doesn't appear to be working that way. Political messaging now appears inside podcasts, Facebook posts, YouTube videos, sponsored segments.

You know, sometimes it's independent, sometimes it's sponsored, sometimes it's coordinated. That's why this issue matters. Voters deserve to know whether what they are seeing is independent commentary or political advertising.

And this new creator economy is really blurring that line right now. The ad does not always look like an ad. The pitch doesn't always sound like a pitch, right?

I mean, the sponsor relationship can be woven into the content so smoothly that the audience experiences it as authenticity. And again, that's not only a Brandi issue. This question is coming for any left, right, independent, populist, whatever political content creators who have figured out that politics is good for engagement and engagement is good for making money.

So again, the question is not whether or not Brandi can speak. The question is whether monetized political promotion has disclosure obligations, and that is a serious question. And Brandi's, you know, they are trying to kill me routine avoids answering it.

Let's listen to one final clip. This is near the end of that segment that, you know, 24, 25 minute long segment that she started her show off with on May 11th.

[Kruse] (23:14 - 25:15)

I mean, I mentioned it briefly, but just in the last couple of weeks, I mean, some leftist filed a PDC complaint against me. That takes time and energy. It's totally nonsensical.

Now we've got this. They're going to have a big press conference and publish all these things, vilifying me as a tool of let's go Washington, because I don't think boys should play against girls. I had a federal defamation suit filed against me that was totally frivolous that I have to believe because of all of this was part of a strategy from Democrats, cost me thousands of dollars just to get it to go away, not to mention the safety concerns that we're living under.

And now renewed safety concern event. I wouldn't have had to have security for as a local podcaster. I'm not Ben Shapiro.

You name it, that I think would have to live with some of these things and expects to live with some of these things. But this is like the depths that they're willing to go to in this state to maintain every ounce of power. Anyone who even poses the smallest threat to them, they will try to squash.

The good news is I don't care. The good news is when you try to come harm my reputation, I don't care about my reputation because the people who I care about their opinion, they they don't have any doubts about my integrity. Now, the safety thing.

Yes, that's bothersome. I don't want to die. I'd prefer not to.

Honestly, I'm having a good time, but I don't know. You know, I'm not going to be deterred by any of this. I think that's obvious.

I'm going to be deterred by any of this. In fact, I'm going to do more. We're going to do more things with Let's Go Washington to stand up for girls, to stand up for parents.

We're going to dive in. So if they thought they were going to deter me, they're not going to deter me. So I don't know what they're trying to push me to unless the goal really is just to get me killed.

[Nixon] (25:16 - 27:39)

There it is again. Unless the goal really is to just get me killed. I mean, she comes back to it over and over again.

In this 20 minute rant, she really wants to put out there that she's very, very convinced that this is an attempt to harm her, like physically, like in a real way. And right before that, she says, we're going to do more things with Let's Go Washington. That's kind of fascinating.

I mean, because the complaint is about whether her activities with or for the benefit of Let's Go Washington should have been disclosed. And her response is, you can't deter me. We're going to do more things with Let's Go Washington.

Okay. I'm not a campaign finance lawyer, but I could speak to the communication strategy. Maybe don't respond to a complaint about your relationship with Let's Go Washington by saying, we're going to do more things with Let's Go Washington.

Well, there's a pending PDC complaint regarding the things you do with Let's Go Washington. Her doing that doesn't prove the complaint. It doesn't do that.

It does show why people are asking questions because Brandi herself describes this as advocacy. She says she supports the initiatives, has done many events for Let's Go Washington, has done speeches for them, has told people how to sign initiatives and the petitions and blah, blah, blah. Her defense is that she was not paid directly by Let's Go Washington.

And that may be important. It may even be decisive. But the complaint is not only about direct payment.

It's about whether value was provided and whether that value should have been reported. Let me say that again. This complaint is not whether cash was exchanged between parties here.

It is about whether value was provided and whether that value should have been reported per Washington state's disclosure laws. And that is a harder question. And it's one that's not answered by saying, I care deeply, right?

Or I believe in the cause. That's not a reporting category. I did it for the girls is not a substitute for disclosure.

The law applies or it doesn't. If the law doesn't, Cruz should make her case and let the PDC exonerate her. But she should stop acting like being asked the question is some great act of civic oppression.

[Kruse] (27:40 - 27:44)

So I don't know what they're trying to push me to, unless the goal really is just to get me killed.

[Nixon] (27:44 - 28:58)

So Brandi, here's the message. This is what you got to roll with here, right? No one is trying to silence you by asking whether campaign finance laws apply to your work.

No one is trying to kill you by filing a PDC complaint. No one is committing violence by reporting on a public complaint. You are allowed to speak.

You are allowed to support Let's Go Washington. You are allowed to be as loud, dramatic, and aggrieved as you want. This is America and we have rights.

We also have rules. And sometimes the rules apply to people with microphones. That's democracy.

If you believe the complaint is nonsense, respond to the PDC. Make your legal argument, cite the appropriate case law, explain the lack of direct payment, your relationship or lack of relationship with Let's Go Washington. Explain all this.

Let the process work on your behalf if you're so certain of the outcome. But stop telling your audience that a campaign finance complaint is an effort to get you killed.

[Kruse]  (28:58 - 29:02)

So I don't know what they're trying to push me to unless the goal really is just to get me killed.

[Nixon] (29:02 - 32:16)

Don't scream defamation while casually calling critics stalkers. Do not complain that the press put a target on your back while you then put a local elected official in front of your own audience with seriously ominous language. None of this is courage.

It's all just victimhood as like a performance art piece. You close this up by saying, you know, the threat here, again, is not that Brandi will be silenced. She won't be. 

The threat is that the public might start asking better questions, right? Many people in this sphere do not want you asking questions like, where does independent commentary and political advertising begin? When does influence have reportable value? 

When does a monetized political platform become part of the campaign finance system? And these questions are questions I think Brandi would prefer to not have answered. Could crimp her style. 

Instead, she makes a story about her, her safety and her reputation, her enemies and her martyrdom. But Brandi's not being persecuted despite her cries to the contrary. This is about whether Washington voters have a right to know who is influencing their elections and what value is being provided, who is paying for it, and whether political messaging is being properly disclosed.

Now, and Brandi, if accountability makes your hair catch on fire, maybe step away from the aquanet before opening the PDC complaint. 

[AI VO]

That's it for this episode of the Public Records Officer Podcast. A quick note before you go.

Some of the voices you heard on the show weren't from real people. Some were totally synthetic, AI-generated to read from public records and legal depositions that are, yep, public. You'll also hear real human voices like live audio from state meetings and the occasional passionate rant from the show's gorgeous host.

Every episode has a full transcript at thepublicrecordsofficer.com. It breaks down which clips came from humans and which came from our robot friends. Think of it like liner notes for digital democracy.

You'll also find links to the original documents and recordings we talked about, hosted on Google Drive, free and public. So if you want to fact check us, go nuts. That's kind of the point.

If this show got you fired up or even just mildly interested, check out the Washington Coalition for Open Government. They're a non-profit that fights for transparency and they've got resources if you want to help or just learn more. And hey, if you work for the state and you've seen one too many messages accidentally disappear, we'd love to hear from you.

Confidentially. Unless you want to be famous. The Public Records Officer podcast is a creation of Nixon and Daughter Productions, powered by good coffee, better whiskey, a microphone, a legal tab, and the apparent misguided belief that government should actually be accountable to people, which is adorable, really.

Thanks for listening. See you next time. And remember, you're not paranoid.

They really did delete it.