On Monday, the Sanders campaign raised the possibility that the Hillary Victory Fund, a joint-fundraising committee for the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and 32 state Democratic Parties, may have committed “serious apparent violations” of campaign-finance laws.

At the heart of the matter is a claim that the fundraising effort may be improperly subsidizing the Clinton campaign. A letter sent by Brad Deutsch, the Sanders campaign attorney, to DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, suggests that money spent by the fund has benefited the Clinton campaign in a way that could constitute “an impermissible in-kind contribution from the DNC and the participating state party committees.” The fund “appears to operate in a way that skirts legal limits on federal campaign donations and primarily benefits the Clinton presidential campaign,” a press release sent out by the Sanders campaign warned.

That doesn’t mean that the allegations are true. “It looks like basically sour grapes,” said Brett Kappel, a campaign-finance lawyer not affiliated with any presidential campaign. “He’s complaining that he’s being treated unfairly by the DNC, and I’m sure it appears that way to him, but joint-fundraising committees can be set up to raise money in just this way.” Election-law expert Rick Hasen wrote on his blog that “legally this seems weak.”

For Sanders, it could still be smart politics. It’s bold for a Democratic presidential candidate to take on the Democratic Party in the midst of a primary election. But it’s not unprecedented for the Sanders campaign, which has gotten into dust-ups with the DNC before. The most obvious risk is that the accusations will create friction between the campaign and the party. If Sanders makes it to the general election, he will likely need institutional support from establishment Democrats. Still, while it might be devastating for most Democratic candidates to pick a fight with the DNC, the tension could actually benefit the senator’s White House run.