More than 200 people who gave a combined $1.5 million to Rep. Eric Swalwell's California gubernatorial campaign have demanded refunds, and the campaign's own staffers say they lack authorization to return the money. The mass exodus of donor support, revealed through an internal campaign document obtained by the San Francisco Chronicle, marks one of the sharpest financial collapses in recent California political history.
The refund demands followed a cascade of sexual misconduct allegations against the 45-year-old congressman that began on April 10, when a former employee spoke anonymously to the Chronicle, alleging Swalwell sexually assaulted her in 2019 when he was her boss, and again in 2024. Within days, at least four more women came forward with their own accounts.
Two days after the first allegation aired, Swalwell posted a social media statement denying the accusations and announcing he was dropping out of the governor's race. He framed the decision as selfless, not as an admission.
"I will fight the serious, false allegations that have been made, but that's my fight, not a campaign's."
His attorney, Sara Azari, went further, stating that Swalwell "categorically and unequivocally denies each and every allegation of sexual misconduct and assault that has been leveled against him." But for the donors who bankrolled his ambition to replace Gavin Newsom, denials are not refunds.
Mike Hsieh, who gave $250 to Swalwell's campaign in early February, told the Chronicle he had been trying to get his money back since the allegations surfaced. He contacted both the Swalwell campaign and ActBlue, the Democratic fundraising platform, only to be directed to a generic campaign email address.
Hsieh said he reached out again after reading reports about how the campaign was spending its remaining funds, including, as the Daily Mail reported, an alleged $40,000 payment to a lawyer to address the allegations on television.
"I was very much incensed. It feels truly unjust because it has nothing to do with the campaign. This seems to me to be illegal, or at least it should be."
Hsieh is far from alone. Campaign staffers, inundated with refund requests, sent donors an email that read more like an apology than a plan. They acknowledged the situation was not what anyone had hoped for, and then admitted their hands were tied.
"We apologize, as this is not the update we were hoping to provide. If it were up to me and my former colleagues, refunds would be the top priority."
That phrasing, "if it were up to me", tells donors everything they need to know. The people closest to the operation wanted to return the money. Someone above them said no, or at least didn't say yes. Swalwell's campaign has not publicly explained who is blocking refunds or why.
The pattern of questionable campaign spending is not new for Swalwell, whose federal filings have drawn scrutiny for expenditures on alcohol delivery, Las Vegas trips, and food delivery services.
The misconduct accusations against Swalwell are not vague rumors. Multiple women have spoken on the record, attaching their names to specific claims.
Lonna Drewes, a California woman, told a news conference she believes Swalwell drugged and raped her in 2018 after the opening of a restaurant. Her account was graphic and direct.
"While he was choking me, I lost consciousness. I thought I died."
Federal campaign disbursement records appear to corroborate at least the logistics of Drewes's account. The Washington Free Beacon reported that FEC records show Swalwell's campaign spent $361 on "travel expenses" at the Montrose West Hollywood, located at 900 Hammond Street, on July 18, 2018, matching the address described by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office in connection with Drewes's criminal complaint. An ethics attorney cited by the Free Beacon said the campaign payments could create additional legal exposure if campaign funds were used for recreational or personal activity.
Ally Sammarco, a social media influencer, said she received unsolicited nude photographs from Swalwell on Snapchat after initially reaching out to him on X to discuss politics. Annika Albrecht said Swalwell sent her "sexually inappropriate" messages on the same platform.
Albrecht told CBS News she would not consider the matter resolved until real consequences followed.
"For me, justice won't be until he can't ever harm a woman ever again, and he has faced the consequences for the women that he has harmed."
Swalwell has been married to Brittany Ann Watts, a sales director at the Ritz-Carlton in Half Moon Bay, since October 2016. They share three children together. Many of the alleged incidents took place during their marriage.
What makes the donor revolt all the more striking is what happened on the other side of the ledger. The New York Post reported that Swalwell continued fundraising after the allegations became public, taking in more than $190,000 from donors including PACs, unions, and other political contributors, even as his gubernatorial bid was already suspended. Campaign records showed the operation held a $4 million war chest.
The Post also reported that Swalwell's campaign processed $53,685 in donor refunds in the first three and a half months of 2026. Between April 10 and April 13 alone, the campaign received at least $4,643.07 in travel-related refunds listed as payments for "services not provided." Donor Juanita Kizor told the Post she asked for her $500 contribution back.
"It's quite disappointing... but there's no going back. He did not act with integrity at all."
Comedian Kathy Griffin, who also sought a refund, said on her podcast: "I'm very proud I was able to get the donation back from Swalwell-world."
Another donor, Cheryl Younger, made her frustration plain in a message to ActBlue: "I'm not interested in electing someone who won't keep his hands in his pockets and his pants zipped when he is representing us and we are paying the tab."
Swalwell's financial records have raised questions before, including delayed tax filings and $244,000 in campaign-funded child care, a pattern that invites scrutiny about where donor money actually goes.
The congressman's troubles extend well beyond the current scandal. The Daily Mail previously revealed that Swalwell used campaign cash to fund a luxury vacation to Puerto Rico in 2021 with now-Senator Ruben Gallego. That trip, paid for with donor dollars, added to a growing list of expenditures that look less like campaign operations and more like personal perks.
Swalwell also faced years of questions about his relationship with a suspected Chinese intelligence operative, a saga he only recently addressed publicly, even as $305,000 in campaign legal payments came to light.
Throughout it all, Swalwell has positioned himself as a champion of accountability, for others. He sat on the House Intelligence Committee. He was among the loudest voices demanding transparency from political opponents. Now, when his own donors ask for basic accountability, a refund for a campaign that imploded under the weight of misconduct allegations, they are met with silence, runaround, and staffers who say they lack the authority to help.
During the governor's race, rival candidates were pressed on what they knew and when. Xavier Becerra, for one, dodged questions during a debate about whether he had been aware of the misconduct allegations before they became public.
Swalwell himself said it would be "unfair" to his constituents if he remained in Congress while distracted from his duties. Yet he remains in Congress. And the donors who funded his next ambition remain out their money, with no clear path to getting it back.
Several facts remain unknown. No law enforcement investigations, court filings, or formal charges have been described in connection with the allegations. It is unclear whether any refunds beyond the partial amounts documented in campaign filings have actually been issued to the more than 200 donors demanding them. The campaign has not explained who is blocking the refunds or on what legal basis donors can be denied.
The internal campaign document, seen by the Chronicle, quantified the scale of the revolt, $1.5 million across more than 200 donors, but its full contents have not been made public.
What is public is the gap between Swalwell's words and his campaign's actions. He called the allegations "false" and said the fight was his, not the campaign's. But the campaign is the one holding donor money. And the donors are the ones being told to wait.
When a politician's own supporters are demanding their money back and his own staffers are apologizing for not being allowed to return it, the campaign hasn't just ended. The trust has.
