Former Rep. Eric Swalwell’s campaign and gubernatorial accounts paid more than $360,000 to celebrity attorney Sara Azari shortly after he resigned, prompting a formal California investigation and fresh questions about whether donor money was used to cover personal legal troubles.
Eleven days after leaving Congress, Swalwell’s campaign paid $50,000 to Sara Azari for “Legal and Accounting Services,” followed by additional checks from his gubernatorial account that included a $250,000 entry labeled “campaign legal compliance,” pushing the total above $360,000. Those transactions, recorded in California filings, are now the focus of an inquiry by the state’s campaign finance regulator. The timing and size of the payments make donors wonder if their contributions were spent on electioneering or on defending alleged personal misconduct.
Allegations from multiple women accused Swalwell of pursuing intoxicated women, pressuring staff into intimate situations, and soliciting explicit images, reporting that quickly eroded support and forced his withdrawal from the governor’s race. Swalwell issued a public statement that mixed apology and resistance, saying, “I am deeply sorry to my family, staff, and constituents for mistakes in judgment I’ve made in my past. I will fight the serious, false allegations made against me. However, I must take responsibility and ownership for the mistakes I did make.”
Federal and local prosecutors in New York and Los Angeles opened criminal inquiries, and the Justice Department has its own interest, creating a rare multi-jurisdictional legal exposure for a former member of Congress. Amid that legal storm, campaign entries labeled as compliance or legal work stand out because campaign finance rules generally bar converting campaign funds to personal use. The core question is simple: were donors paying for campaign work or personal defense?
The California Fair Political Practices Commission launched a formal probe at the end of May into Swalwell’s gubernatorial campaign committee to determine whether those payments violated state law. FPPC Assistant Chief Christopher Burton wrote in the investigation letter that, “At this time, we have not made any determination about the possible violations.” The formal opening of an investigation signals regulators think the records merit scrutiny, even if no conclusion has been reached yet.
Campaign law draws a line between legal expenses tied to official campaign activity and those tied to private conduct. Legal bills arising from alleged personal misconduct typically cannot be charged to campaign accounts, while certain compliance or office-related legal work can be legitimate. The labels in Swalwell’s filings — “Legal and Accounting Services” and “campaign legal compliance” — do not prove the payments were lawful, leaving investigators to untangle what services those invoices actually covered.
The Azari payments add to a pattern of contested campaign spending. Records show Swalwell’s campaign recently paid over $22,000 to a nanny in a dozen transactions, and he has used campaign funds for child care more than many peers. Over several years his accounts recorded thousands on babysitters, hotels, alcohol deliveries, and upscale meals, items critics say look more like subsidized lifestyle than campaign necessity.
Sara Azari was one of the few attorneys willing to defend Swalwell publicly after his resignation, and she issued a robust rebuttal on social media calling the accusations “a ruthless and shameless attempt to smear Congressman Swalwell.” She also argued more explicitly in interviews that regret is not the same as a crime, telling a network, “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.”
Azari praised Swalwell’s resignation as “a tremendous amount of accountability” while insisting that stepping down was not an admission of guilt. Her public defense overlapping with six-figure payments from his campaign accounts raises obvious questions about whether that money funded legal representation, crisis communications, or both. Neither Swalwell nor Azari has detailed what services those checks covered.
Media appearances amplified Swalwell’s profile even as investigations proceeded; cable outlets gave him dozens of segments in recent months, allowing him to shape his public narrative amid ongoing probes. That visibility makes the nature of the bills to Azari more than an accounting matter — it goes to whether donors were effectively underwriting a media and legal campaign rather than a bid for office.
State regulators and federal prosecutors now hold the answers about whether donor dollars were used lawfully or diverted to personal defense. The unresolved record leaves donors and voters asking whether campaign accounts were treated as political war chests or as a private safety net, and whether anyone will be held accountable if the spending crossed legal lines.
