Unfortunately, I think there's a lot of smoke here but it would be really difficult to prove fire - all of these articles (and there are more than just HuffPo) have a ton of extra facts that are irrelevant, like they are throwing things at the wall to make you think they matter when they don't.
To clear the smoke and focus on the potential fire, here's what I think they are arguing:
Part 1: The SuperPAC paying the production company that made Clinton Cash. The SuperPAC that goes by a bunch of different names paid some money to Bannon's company Glittering Steel, which made that Clinton Cash movie. Glittering Steel has made other movies (including one called TorchBearer that looks pretty crazy about Phil Robertson), so it doesn't appear to be some kind of front company for Steve Bannon to secretly be a SuperPAC employee without actually being a SuperPAC employee. There's nothing wrong with a SuperPAC paying Glittering Steel for something like that, assuming that it's not just some kind of front to pay Bannon. SuperPACs can make that kind of expenditure on a non-electioneering communication, which is presumably what that movie was given that it was distributed in theaters (The definition of Electioneering Communications is here - they basically have to be on TV - "Broadcast, cable, or satellite communication")
Part 2: The cooling off period. Cooling off periods typically apply when you are moving from the campaign to a PAC, not the other direction, because presumably that's when you'd have secret campaign knowledge that you could be using to coordinate with the PAC. I can't seem to find the actual rule, but even if you assume it is written to go both directions, Steve Bannon was never an employee of the PAC. He worked for one the PAC's contractors. And even if he had worked for the PAC and moved to the campaign, you would STILL have to then prove that he took confidential data from the PAC to the campaign that benefitted the campaign in some way. The cooling off period is just a way to demonstrate lack of coordination, a lack of one doesn't necessarily prove coordination.
Other facts in these articles that are irrelevant: When Steve Bannon got paid: All the cooling off periods and stuff are based on when work actually happened, not when checks got put in the mail or cashed. Otherwise you could have people violating these rules in arrears just because of a delayed check.
Sorry...I really went down the rabbit hole on that one.
Unfortunately, I think there's a lot of smoke here but it would be really difficult to prove fire - all of these articles (and there are more than just HuffPo) have a ton of extra facts that are irrelevant, like they are throwing things at the wall to make you think they matter when they don't.
"This prick is asking for someone here to bring him to task Somebody give me some dirt on this vacuous mass so we can at last unmask him I'll pull the trigger on it, someone load the gun and cock it While we were all watching, he got Washington in his pocket."
"This prick is asking for someone here to bring him to task Somebody give me some dirt on this vacuous mass so we can at last unmask him I'll pull the trigger on it, someone load the gun and cock it While we were all watching, he got Washington in his pocket."