If he's not involved in politics, there's no need for the funds. If it's for future use, it should have been saved for future use in politics and not given to his son. It may not be illegal, but it should be. It does give a strong appearance of impropriety.
I'm not missing anything.
This is all much ado about nothing.
It wasn’t “given” to his son, his son received payment for services, whatever they were, to manage the PAC. The other PACs mentioned all seemed to have more money than this spent to manage them (btw, I think “managing” includes expenditures used to raise the money, like if you did direct mail advertising).
If the son wasn’t actually working for the PAC, now that would be interesting.
If his son is employed to ‘manage’ the account, it is not unusual to be paid for this. Nothing untoward about this, at all.
“If it’s for future use, it should have been saved for future use in politics and not given to his son.”
You obviously did not read the report. Nothing was simply “given to his son”. His son did for his father’s PAC the same kind of legal, fund-raising and fund distribution tasks he did for others; that his father would have paid for, no matter who did it. (Actually he looks like he got his son pretty cheap.)
Many prominent politicians do have PACs that have hired a very close friend or relative to run them. Why? It provides a level of loyalty that permits the PAC to operate extremely close to exactly what its benefactor wants, without a lot of hands on attention by the benefactor and without a lot of second-guessing by the PAC’s manager. Since it is the benefactors money, there is nothing improper about having their own PAC run by whomever they chose. It is a private fund, not an element of the government.