Former Rep. Eric Swalwell has funneled more than $300,000 in campaign donor money to the celebrity criminal defense attorney representing him against sexual misconduct allegations, triggering a formal state investigation into whether the payments violate California campaign finance law.
The payments to attorney Sara Azari began at $40,000 and ballooned from there, all drawn from a campaign war chest that still holds over $2.6 million. Swalwell resigned from Congress on April 14, just days after the Manhattan District Attorney's office opened an investigation into allegations that the California Democrat sexually assaulted a former congressional aide. He simultaneously suspended his gubernatorial campaign.
Now the money trail has drawn its own investigators. California's Fair Political Practices Commission launched a formal probe on May 28 into Swalwell's campaign committee, examining whether he illegally converted donor funds into a personal legal defense fund. The question at the center of the inquiry: Can a politician use campaign cash to fight allegations of personal sexual misconduct?
The initial accusation came from a former aide who alleged Swalwell sexually assaulted her while she was inebriated and also raped her in 2019. The Manhattan DA opened its investigation on April 11. Three days later, Swalwell was out of Congress and off the gubernatorial trail.
But the former congressman's problems did not stop with one accuser. Newsmax reported that CNN found more than a dozen women accusing Swalwell of sending unsolicited sexual messages via Snapchat, including nude photos and videos of himself masturbating. One woman alleged Swalwell drugged, raped, and choked her in a California hotel room in 2018.
A female congressional staffer confirmed receiving nude photos and masturbation videos from Swalwell during what she described as a consensual relationship that began through Snapchat in 2021. She told CNN that Swalwell's Snapchat presence mixed the professional with the explicit.
"His stories would be his, like, congressional content, but then he would be sending me" photos of his private parts.
Azari, Swalwell's attorney, acknowledged the extramarital conduct while drawing a firm line at consent. She told reporters:
"He had extramarital contact with women. He's not denying that. But that's very different than engaging in nonconsensual sexual misconduct."
Swalwell himself has "categorically" denied the assault and harassment allegations. Through Azari, he called the claims "a calculated and transparent political hit job." In a blunter formulation, Azari told reporters: "Regret is not rape."
Fox News reported on the scale of the payments just weeks after Swalwell left office. The spending drew immediate scrutiny because Swalwell was no longer a sitting officeholder or active candidate when much of the money flowed to Azari.
Campaign finance filings reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon showed the initial $40,000 payment from Swalwell's gubernatorial campaign to Azari. But subsequent filings revealed the total legal tab had grown to over $300,000, all paid from campaign accounts.
The legal fees were not the only eyebrow-raising expenditures. The Free Beacon also found $22,549 in campaign payments for babysitters and $50,000 spent on Super Bowl attendance. The pattern painted a picture of a campaign account functioning less as an election fund and more as a personal checking account.
Swalwell is hardly the first Democratic politician to face questions about the intersection of personal misconduct allegations and public accountability. A rape allegation forced another Democratic candidate out of a Senate race earlier this year, drawing bipartisan condemnation.
The New York Post first reported that the FPPC had opened a formal investigation into the payments. The commission sent a letter on May 28 notifying Swalwell's campaign committee that it was examining potential violations of California's campaign finance laws.
Christopher Burton, the FPPC's assistant chief, struck a measured tone in the letter.
"At this time, we have not made any determination about the possible violations."
The investigation centers on a straightforward legal question with real consequences. California law, like federal election law, prohibits candidates from converting campaign funds to personal use. Legal fees qualify as a legitimate campaign expense only when the underlying legal matter arises directly from campaign activity or official duties. Sexual misconduct allegations stemming from personal conduct would not typically meet that threshold.
If the FPPC determines Swalwell misused the funds, he could face fines and an order to repay the campaign account. The commission has the authority to refer matters for criminal prosecution in egregious cases, though such referrals remain rare.
With over $2.6 million still sitting in Swalwell's campaign accounts, much of that money may now be effectively frozen by the legal cloud hanging over it. Every dollar spent on Azari's fees becomes a potential exhibit in the FPPC's case.
Swalwell's fall fits a broader pattern of sexual misconduct allegations rattling Capitol Hill. Speaker Johnson has pushed reforms as sex abuse allegations have rocked Congress, and the institutional response to such cases remains a live political question.
The Swalwell matter stands out, though, for the financial dimension. Politicians accused of misconduct typically retain private attorneys and pay from personal funds or legal defense trusts set up for that purpose. Routing hundreds of thousands of dollars through a campaign committee to fight personal misconduct claims is an unusually aggressive move, and one that invited exactly the kind of regulatory scrutiny now underway.
Azari, the attorney at the center of the spending controversy, is no stranger to high-profile cases. She has built a reputation as a celebrity defense lawyer, and her involvement signals that Swalwell is treating the allegations as a serious legal fight rather than a political brushfire to be managed through press statements alone.
The allegations against Swalwell also arrive during a period when House Republicans have moved to impeach a federal judge over sexual misconduct, reflecting a broader willingness to hold public officials accountable for conduct that would have been quietly buried a generation ago.
Swalwell faces pressure on multiple fronts. The Manhattan DA's investigation into the assault allegations remains open. The FPPC is examining his campaign spending. And the growing number of accusers, now exceeding a dozen, makes a clean public rehabilitation difficult to imagine.
Investigators in both New York and California have not publicly confirmed whether they have interviewed Swalwell or subpoenaed records beyond campaign filings. The Manhattan DA's office has not announced any charging decisions. Authorities have not said whether the additional women who came forward to CNN have filed formal complaints.
Swalwell's defense team has staked out an aggressive posture, framing the accusations as politically motivated and insisting that all of his sexual contact with women outside his marriage was consensual. Whether that defense holds will depend on facts that have not yet been made public.
The campaign finance question may prove easier to resolve. The FPPC investigation follows a paper trail, and the numbers are already on the public record. If the commission finds that $300,000 in legal fees for a personal misconduct defense constitutes illegal conversion of campaign funds, Swalwell's financial exposure will grow well beyond attorney bills.
When a politician treats donor money like a personal legal slush fund, the spending itself becomes the scandal. Voters gave Swalwell that money to win elections, not to hire a celebrity lawyer to fight rape allegations. If California regulators agree, the bill will come due twice.
