Welcome back to The Red Letter from Perugia, Italy, where I’m speaking at the International Journalism Festival about independent media but hitting the phones instead of enjoying lattes and gelato. You’re welcome.
The fallout around Eric Swalwell isn’t just political—it’s financial.
Swalwell’s billionaire Beverly Hills donor Stephen Cloobeck has announced he is suing to recover the $1 million he donated to the campaign, after housing the candidate while allegations were emerging. When we spoke on Tuesday week, he said he was in shock, particularly as I told him that Swalwell’s reputation for philandering was, in many circles, one of the worst-kept secrets in Washington.
But according to multiple sources, Cloobeck is not alone in wanting distance, he’s just the most visible.
Behind the scenes, others are taking a quieter approach: calling fundraisers and campaign intermediaries to ask whether their money can be returned.
“They don’t want to be associated with this, they want to be able to say they asked for their money back,” said one Democratic donor advisor who has been fielding those calls.
That distinction matters because campaign contributions are public. And for some donors, the reputational risk isn’t just what they gave, it’s what those donations might now be seen to support.
“They don’t want the next filing to show they backed him,” the advisor added. “They want it to show it was refunded.”
The anger among donors is palpable and widespread. They’re angry, they’re fed up, and many want their money back.
Some donors aren’t necessarily demanding refunds outright, but they are trying to control where their money goes.
🔒 Subscribe to The Red Letter to read more about how donors are trying to claw back contributions and why there are questions surrounding whether leadership knew about Swalwell.
