Welp, what was originally a piece about Eric Swalwell’s questionable childcare payments turned into… we’re not sure what. All we can say is you’ve got to read this to believe it.
Or disbelieve it, as some of the allegations made further down, we can’t verify or deny.
But WOWZA, ladies and gents.
It all started here:
🧵Let’s talk about the $240,000 in “Childcare” reimbursements Eric Swalwell received during his time in Congress.
The FEC’s “Incremental” Test
The FEC does allow for childcare reimbursements, but the standard is exceedingly strict. To pass legal and ethical muster, these… https://t.co/Tmg6eekMbw pic.twitter.com/wXBNSOJ7Vp
— Apple Lamps (@lamps_apple) April 6, 2026
Post continues:
… payments cannot simply cover a politician’s everyday domestic overhead. They must meet a rigorous, three-pronged test…
Direct Causality: The childcare must be explicitly and directly triggered by campaign activities… such as travel, canvassing, or fundraising events.
Strictly Incremental: Donor funds can only cover the extra coverage needed precisely because of the campaign. Paying a sitter for a Saturday night fundraiser that otherwise wouldn’t require coverage is permitted… subsidizing a regular, pre-existing, year-round nanny schedule is explicitly prohibited.
Meticulous Documentation: The expenditures must be cleanly tied to specific dates, hours, and campaign purposes.
A Predictable Drumbeat of Payouts
A review of Representative Swalwell’s campaign finance disbursements, however, paints a picture that appears deeply at odds with the unpredictable, ad-hoc nature of campaign events. Instead, the filings reveal a ledger that looks remarkably like a fixed, weekly payroll.
Consider a sequence of transactions logged across a single summer. Rather than fluctuating to match the erratic schedule of a campaign trail, the payments roll out with the steady, high-dollar rhythm of a salaried employee:
June 6, $1,858.50.
June 13, $1,607.75.
June 20, $1,799.50.
June 26, $1,711.00.
July 3, $1,386.50.
July 10, $1,829.00.
July 25, $1,622.50.
August 1, $1,919.82.
August 15, $1,681.50.
August 22, $1,829.00.These are thousands of dollars flowing out on a near-weekly basis, totaling a staggering $240,000.
The clockwork regularity of these transactions raises an unavoidable question… Is the Swalwell campaign truly generating between $1,300 and $1,900 worth of exclusively incremental, campaign-specific childcare needs every single week? Or have donors unwittingly become the financiers of his family’s baseline expenses?
The burden of proof rests squarely on the Congressman. To justify this $240,000 expenditure, Swalwell will need to do more than point to the theoretical legality of childcare reimbursements. He will need to produce the receipts… matching every single payout to a specific, documented hour of campaign work.
Until he does, donors might rightfully wonder if they are financing a political movement…. or simply paying the babysitter.
Recommended
Looks like they’re paying a babysitter. Just sayin’.
he is vile.https://t.co/PtyyQeEMUl
— Apple Lamps (@lamps_apple) April 6, 2026
Ummm …
A year ago my friend told me about an inappropriate experience she had with a politician. She told me about how it negatively shaped her entire career but never said who. This week she reached out to me because that politician is poised to become governor of California.
— Organizermemes (@OrganizerMemes) April 5, 2026
MEEP.
Note: We can neither confirm nor deny whether any of this is true, but we feel like people should at least read it, especially Californians.
And it’s not a individual allegation. I’ve heard at least half a dozen jokes on the hill about the late night snapchats, I’ve met people who’ve had friends with eerily similar stories, who’ve seen the dm’s themselves, stories have started to trickle out online
— Organizermemes (@OrganizerMemes) April 5, 2026
We should also note that this account appears to be of the Leftist persuasion and has actually blocked this editor … but we digress.
What’s the point of removing Cesar Chavez from CA history while electing another scumbag to power? We deserve someone who uses power to uplift
— Organizermemes (@OrganizerMemes) April 5, 2026
Hooboy.
The story she told me was before there was any talk of him running for governor. My friend is terrified of repercussions. There’s no incentive to have told me the story a year ago.
— Organizermemes (@OrganizerMemes) April 6, 2026
Just talked to my friend and I wasn’t sure the implications of naming the candidate but confirmed it’s fine to say openly that this is about Eric swalwell.
— Organizermemes (@OrganizerMemes) April 6, 2026
Alrighty then.
— Apple Lamps (@lamps_apple) April 6, 2026
DOUBLE MEEP.
============================================================
Related:
EPIC, Straight-FIRE Post Takes Every Leftist and Woke Right Podcastard Rooting Against America APART
============================================================
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Twitchy VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
![CNN's Kaitlan Collins Fact-Checks Rep. Jasmine Crockett Over False Trump Ballroom Claim [WATCH]](https://www.right2024.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/1761954330_CNNs-Kaitlan-Collins-Fact-Checks-Rep-Jasmine-Crockett-Over-False-Trump-350x250.jpg)
