Now, before the "well actually" crowd fires up: yes, this appears to be technically legal. Federal Election Commission rules allow campaign funds to be used for legal expenses connected to a candidate's role as an officeholder or their electability. As one local commenter put it, "Nothing illegal happened there." And fair enough — the law is what it is.

But legality and propriety aren't the same thing, and this is exactly the kind of arrangement that erodes public trust in elected officials. When donors chip in $25 or $50 to support a candidate, they're betting on representation, not bankrolling someone's courtroom defense against assault allegations. The fact that campaign finance law has a loophole wide enough to drive a legal retainer through doesn't make it right — it makes the loophole the problem.

Swalwell, who represented a district spanning parts of the East Bay, is on his way out of Congress, and few are shedding tears. One SF resident summed it up bluntly: his exit is "good riddance to bad rubbish."

Hard to argue with that.

The bigger issue here isn't one congressman's legal bills — it's the campaign finance system itself. Americans across the political spectrum are told their small-dollar donations are fueling democracy. Instead, those dollars routinely get funneled into consultant fees, lavish dinners, and apparently, defense attorneys. The system isn't broken because of one bad actor. It's broken because it's designed to allow exactly this kind of spending with zero accountability to the people writing the checks.

Swalwell's gone. The rules that let this happen? Still very much in place.