Eric Swalwell used $40,000 from his now-defunct California governor campaign to pay a high-profile Los Angeles attorney to defend him on television against sexual assault allegations, a recent financial disclosure reveals. The payment to attorney Sara Azari, a self-described specialist in "allegations of sexual misconduct in a post-#MeToo landscape", came as the former congressman's political career collapsed under the weight of accusations from several women.
The disclosure, first reported by the New York Post, raises a straightforward question: Why is a politician using donor money earmarked for a gubernatorial race to hire a lawyer for personal defense on cable news?
Swalwell has denied all allegations against him. In his own words, he acknowledged only "mistakes in judgment I've made in the past." But those "mistakes" now involve criminal investigations in both Los Angeles and New York, plus a separate Justice Department inquiry into alleged sexual misconduct, a trifecta of legal exposure that few former members of Congress have faced simultaneously.
Azari, who also serves as a contributor to NewsNation, defended Swalwell during an interview on that network. Her argument boiled down to a memorable phrase that drew immediate attention.
As Azari told NewsNation:
"The fact that, you know, a day later, years later, or whatnot, you maybe had shame around what you did, or maybe you were in a relationship and shouldn't have done what you did, doesn't make it rape."
She also offered a blunter formulation: "regret is not rape." It is the kind of defense line that works better on a cable news panel than in a courtroom. And at $40,000 from campaign coffers, donors to Swalwell's gubernatorial bid are the ones who paid for it.
When asked about Swalwell's decision to step down from Congress, Azari framed the resignation as a mark of character. She told NewsNation:
"I think it demonstrates a tremendous amount of accountability, not because he's done these things and he's stepping down, but because how could he properly defend himself and represent his constituency with these serious allegations pending."
That reasoning deserves a closer look. Swalwell did not resign because he was found guilty. He resigned because the allegations made it impossible for him to function as a congressman. Calling that "accountability" is generous at best. Accountability would involve answering the allegations directly, not hiring a television lawyer with campaign money and then disappearing from public view.
The accusations that torpedoed Swalwell's gubernatorial bid included an LA model's allegation that he drugged, raped, and choked her at a West Hollywood hotel. Several other women have also come forward with allegations against the former congressman.
Swalwell now faces criminal investigations in two major cities. Los Angeles and New York authorities are both looking into the allegations. On top of that, the Justice Department has opened its own inquiry into the alleged sexual misconduct.
The federal angle adds a layer of gravity. A U.S. Attorney has moved to interview Swalwell's accusers, signaling that the investigation may extend beyond the allegations themselves and into the institutional mechanisms that may have shielded him while he served in Congress.
None of the investigations have produced charges as of the disclosure. But the sheer breadth of legal scrutiny, local, state, and federal, is not the profile of a man whose only offense was poor personal judgment. It is the profile of a public official whose conduct attracted the attention of prosecutors in multiple jurisdictions.
The financial disclosure does not specify which campaign committee made the $40,000 payment, though the New York Post reported the money came from Swalwell's since-dropped California governor campaign. The filing agency and exact date of the disclosure remain unclear from available reporting.
Swalwell's congressional seat remains empty. Gov. Gavin Newsom has scheduled a special election for August this year to fill it. That means the voters of California's 15th Congressional District, who elected Swalwell to represent them, have been without a representative while their former congressman pays lawyers with donor money and hides from public view.
The special election set by Newsom is the direct political consequence of a scandal that has rattled California's Democratic establishment. And Swalwell is not the only figure facing uncomfortable questions.
Other California Democrats have struggled to explain what they knew and when. During a gubernatorial debate, Xavier Becerra dodged questions about what he knew regarding Swalwell misconduct rumors, a telling moment that suggested the allegations did not emerge in a vacuum.
Meanwhile, Swalwell's wife Brittany and the couple's family were recently spotted at Mexico's Los Cabos International Airport after what the New York Post described as a week-long luxury resort stay. Swalwell himself was not with them.
The optics write themselves. A former congressman under investigation in three jurisdictions, absent from his family's vacation, with a vacant congressional seat behind him and $40,000 in campaign money spent on a television lawyer ahead of him.
Federal election law permits the use of campaign funds for legal expenses in certain circumstances, generally when the legal matter arises from the officeholder's duties. The line between campaign-related legal defense and personal legal defense has long been a gray area that incumbents exploit.
But Swalwell's case pushes the boundaries. The allegations against him are personal in nature, sexual assault claims involving private conduct. The $40,000 payment went not to a courtroom defense attorney but to a television commentator hired to make his case on cable news. Whether that qualifies as a legitimate campaign expenditure is a question the financial disclosure raises but does not answer.
The escalating legal threats from accusers suggest the $40,000 may be just the beginning of Swalwell's legal bills. Civil litigation could follow the criminal investigations, and campaign funds have limits, both legal and practical.
Azari told The California Post, which contacted her for comment, that she specializes in defending clients facing allegations of sexual misconduct. Her dual role as a paid NewsNation contributor and a paid Swalwell attorney raises its own transparency questions. When she appeared on air to defend him, viewers had a right to know she was being compensated with campaign dollars to do so.
Eric Swalwell built a career on moral posturing. He sat on the House Intelligence Committee. He ran for president. He positioned himself as a champion of accountability in government. Now he faces allegations from several women, investigations in three jurisdictions, and a financial disclosure showing he raided his own campaign treasury to pay for a PR defense.
He has not been charged. He has not been convicted. Those facts matter, and they should be stated plainly. But the gap between Swalwell's public persona and the reality described in these filings and investigations is wide enough to drive a campaign bus through.
Donors who gave money to help Swalwell become governor of California did not sign up to fund his personal legal defense on cable television. The voters who lost their congressman did not ask for an empty seat until August. And the women who made allegations deserve a process that moves faster than Swalwell's retreat from public life.
When politicians spend other people's money to clean up their own messes, the people who pay the bill are always the last to find out, and the first to be forgotten.
