Newly unearthed Federal Election Commission records show that Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), one of President Donald Trump’s most outspoken critics, has made more than $360,000 in campaign payments since 2021 to a California man for ‘bizarre’ reasons.According to FEC filings, Swalwell’s campaign committee and his political action committee, Remedy PAC, have issued more than 75 payments to an individual named Darly Meyer, a North Hollywood resident who also operates a limousine business called CYD Global Car Service.The payments, which span from 2021 through September 2025, vary from as little as $53 to more than $12,000 each. Filings list a wide range of descriptions for the disbursements, including “security services,” “salary,” “travel reimbursement,” “personal travel expense reimbursement,” “car service,” “event flowers reimbursement,” and “postage.” Individual payments totaled more than $120,000 in both 2024 and 2025 alone.
Hans von Spakovsky, a former FEC commissioner and senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said the pattern of inconsistencies should trigger a formal review by the agency’s enforcement arm.
“This is the type of bizarre inconsistency that should catch the attention of the FEC,” von Spakovsky said. “These kinds of irregularities should cause the agency’s auditing arm to investigate whether these were legitimate payments to a legitimate contractor.”
CBF Carousel
Swalwell’s campaign did not provide a detailed explanation for the varied classifications, Fox News reported.
When reached for comment, the California Democrat replied only, “Darly protects me and my family.” However, a search of the California Bureau of Security and Investigative Services database found no record of a state-issued security license for Meyer.
Public records show that Meyer’s business car service markets itself as a provider of “corporate shuttles and luxury chauffeur services” across California. He also serves as an administrator for a Facebook group called CaliHaitians, which describes itself as a “progressive community” for Haitian Americans living in the western United States.
The findings come as Swalwell continues to face scrutiny for his campaign’s history of lavish spending on travel, entertainment, and luxury accommodations abroad. Past FEC filings show that Swalwell’s campaign has repeatedly billed thousands of dollars for first-class hotels, private yacht charters, and luxury transportation services.In October 2023, his campaign reported spending nearly $17,000 with Just Dreaming Yacht Charters, a San Francisco-based company that advertises “relaxing and luxurious” yacht outings for up to 40 guests. His 2023 year-end filing also showed nearly $1,700 in charges at Dubai’s five-star Burj Al Arab Hotel, along with additional expenses at 1 Hotel San Francisco, Austin Proper Hotel, and the Times Square Edition in New York.
In total, Swalwell’s campaign reported roughly $90,000 in travel-related expenses during the final three months of 2023 alone. Earlier filings from 2022 showed nearly $60,000 in travel spending over a six-week span, including a $1,752 charge at Hotel La Maison Champs-Élysées in Paris.
These revelations have fueled accusations from conservative watchdogs and critics that Swalwell’s committees function as “personal slush funds” under the guise of campaign expenditures.Von Spakovsky said the discrepancies in the Meyer payments highlight a larger transparency problem. “When you see this kind of reporting pattern — different labels, inconsistent descriptions, and overlapping functions — it’s the sort of thing that absolutely deserves FEC scrutiny,” he said.
Swalwell, who serves on the House Judiciary Committee and has been one of Trump’s most combative opponents in Congress, has long been a target of Republican criticism over ethics and security concerns.
In 2020, intelligence officials confirmed that a suspected Chinese spy known as Christine Fang, or “Fang Fang,” had developed ties to Swalwell earlier in his career, including through political fundraising. House Republicans later cited that relationship when removing him from the House Intelligence Committee in 2023, calling him a “national security risk.” Swalwell denied wrongdoing, saying he cooperated fully with the FBI and was never accused of misconduct.
The new FEC irregularities are expected to draw further attention from federal regulators.
“If these payments were truly for security, then documentation should exist — invoices, contracts, service receipts,” von Spakovsky said. “If they don’t, that’s when you get into potential violations of campaign finance law.”
In a letter to Cook, Trump wrote, “Pursuant to my authority under Article II of the Constitution of the United States and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, as amended, you are hereby removed from your position on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, effective immediately. I have determined that there is sufficient cause to remove you from your position.”
Cook, appointed to the Fed’s Board of Governors by President Joe Biden, has filed a lawsuit challenging her removal.
The suit, assigned to a Biden-appointed federal judge, names Trump, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, and Chairman Jerome Powell as defendants. She is represented by attorneys Abbe Lowell and Norm Eisen.
At the center of the case is a dispute over Cook’s real estate holdings. Pulte’s referral alleges Cook committed mortgage fraud by misrepresenting the occupancy status of two properties.
According to the referral, Cook obtained a mortgage for a Michigan home as her “primary residence” and, within weeks, claimed the same status for a condo in Atlanta.
“We have obtained a document Lisa Cook submitted to the U.S. Government while serving as Federal Reserve Governor. In it, on February 28, 2023, she represents to the U.S. Government that the Atlanta property is her personal residence,” Pulte stated. “However, Lisa Cook, as a then-sitting Fed Governor and six months earlier, on September 1, 2022, appears to have listed that same property for rent.”
Pulte argued that the timing of the two loans indicated Cook’s lenders may not have been aware of each other’s underwriting processes, a situation he described as consistent with occupancy fraud. Such cases typically involve borrowers designating multiple properties as primary residences to obtain lower interest rates or more favorable terms.
Cook’s legal complaint did not directly dispute the timeline of her mortgage filings but framed the allegations as overstated.
The complaint stated that the president’s justification for removal was “the unsubstantiated and unproven allegation that Governor Cook ‘potentially’ erred in filling out a mortgage form prior to her Senate confirmation.”
Her lawyers argued that even if errors occurred, they did not rise to the legal standard of “cause” for removal under the Federal Reserve Act.
The filing further acknowledged that Cook had manufactured certain documents but attributed the matter to clerical mistakes.
“Even if the President had been more careful in obscuring his real justification for targeting Governor Cook, the President’s concocted basis for removal—the unsubstantiated and unproven allegation that Governor Cook ‘potentially’ erred in filling out a mortgage form… does not amount to ‘cause,’” the complaint read.
The case has drawn heightened attention given Cook’s appointment as the first Black woman to serve on the Federal Reserve Board in its 111-year history — an attempt by the former Biden administration to add diversity to the powerful financial body.
Her lawyers emphasized this in their filing, noting: “Governor Cook is the first Black woman to sit on the Federal Reserve’s Board.”
The outcome of the lawsuit could set precedent for how presidents may exercise removal powers over Federal Reserve governors, a body historically viewed as independent from partisan pressures.
Legal experts say the dispute will likely turn on how courts interpret “cause” under the Federal Reserve Act, as well as the weight of the allegations against Cook.
The Federal Reserve has not issued a public statement regarding Cook’s dismissal or the pending litigation. At stake in the lawsuit is a potential federal court ruling clarifying that the Federal Reserve is under the authority of the executive branch or else it is wielding “unconstitutional” authority.