SWALWELL'S SHAME: $200K of YOUR Money on BABYSITTING?!

A growing controversy surrounds Representative Eric Swalwell, as newly reviewed financial records reveal over $200,000 in campaign funds were allocated to childcare expenses. The funds, disbursed between 2019 and 2025, raise questions about the appropriate use of campaign finances and the line between personal and professional expenditures.

The most recent filings show a significant surge in childcare costs, with over $22,000 spent in just three months – October to December 2025. Notably, several payments totaling over $6,000 were directly made to Swalwell’s wife, Brittany Swalwell, listed simply as “childcare” expenses.

A substantial portion of the funds, exceeding $102,000, went to Amanda Barbosa, a Dublin, California-based childcare provider. Barbosa’s online profiles indicate she began offering childcare services shortly before receiving the first campaign payment, and photos show her with the Swalwell family, even during a trip to Disney World.

Further examination of the filings reveals $57,324.40 paid to a Spanish immersion daycare center in Washington, D.C., suggesting childcare needs followed Swalwell’s travel and campaign activities. These payments covered not only tuition but also associated expenses like travel, food, and beverages related to childcare during campaign events.

While federal law generally prohibits using campaign funds for personal expenses, a 2018 FEC opinion created a narrow exception for childcare directly linked to campaign activity. Swalwell himself sought clarification from the FEC in 2022, successfully arguing for the use of campaign funds for overnight childcare necessitated by his campaign travel.

However, experts are sounding alarms. Allen Mendenhall, a campaign finance expert, argues that childcare is fundamentally a personal expense, regardless of campaign demands. He warns that allowing such reimbursements sets a dangerous precedent, potentially opening the door for candidates to charge donors for a wide range of personal costs.

Mendenhall believes this FEC decision creates a privileged class of politicians, shielded from the financial realities faced by ordinary citizens. He emphasizes that campaign finance laws are designed to protect the integrity of the electoral process, not to subsidize the private lives of those seeking office.

The core concern is the erosion of trust in the system. Allowing campaign funds to cover inherently personal expenses like childcare risks blurring the lines between public service and personal benefit, potentially undermining the fairness and transparency of elections.

The implications of this case extend beyond Swalwell’s individual spending. It raises broader questions about the FEC’s interpretation of campaign finance regulations and the potential for abuse, demanding a closer look at how these funds are utilized and overseen.

Swalwell’s office has not yet responded to inquiries regarding these expenditures, leaving unanswered questions about the rationale behind these significant childcare reimbursements and their impact on the integrity of his campaign finances.