As legal expenses mount from multiple criminal investigations into the sexual assault allegations against former Representative Eric Swalwell, dozens of people who donated to his campaign for governor are pushing to get their money back.

As previously reported, Swalwell ended his campaign for governor on April 12 and resigned from Congress the next day after a former staffer said he assaulted her twice when she was too intoxicated to consent. Additional women have since come forward with similar claims, prompting multiple law enforcement investigations.

Following the allegations, campaign staff were flooded with refund requests from donors, and over 200 donors are now seeking more than $1.5 million back, according to the Chronicle. A lawyer advising the campaign did not respond to questions about whether any refunds have been issued.

One man who donated $250 to the campaign reportedly said he has been trying to get a refund since the allegations became public, contacting both ActBlue and the campaign. He said only ActBlue initially responded, pointing him to a general campaign email.

Per the Chronicle, after reading that $40,000 in campaign funds had gone to Swalwell’s defense attorney Sara Azari, the donor said he followed up again, arguing that the spending was unrelated to the campaign. A former staffer later replied that they were unable to process the request, citing a lack of guidance on how refunds should be handled.

Financial disclosures show the campaign reported $4 million in cash on hand and roughly $200,000 in unpaid debts as of April 18. Per the Chronicle, Swalwell has significant personal debt, and he appears to be using campaign funds at least in part to cover legal expenses tied to the allegations.

Whether or not this is a fully a legal use of campaign funds may not be a simple question to answer.

A spokesperson for the Fair Political Practices Commission pointed to state guidelines allowing campaign funds to be used for legal costs only if they are directly tied to campaign activity or a candidate’s official duties, such as election compliance or defamation claims, but did not comment on Swalwell’s case, as the Chronicle reports.

An election law professor said Swalwell is likely to argue the allegations surfaced because of his gubernatorial run, and the expenditure is therefore justified.

Meanwhile, as Politico reports, several Democratic candidates across the country have donated their campaign contributions from the disgraced Swalwell to charity.

Previously: Eric Swalwell Could Now Face Rape Charge In Los Angeles as New Accuser Comes Forward

Photo via Getty Images

Briefly touched upon last week when the final batch of Prop 8 donor names unfurled, Utah citizens and the LDS Church spent more on getting Prop. 8 passed than previously known. According to the Salt Lake Tribune:

Utahans and the LDS Church spent significantly more than previously reported on last-minute efforts to push passage of California's ban of same-sex marriage, newly filed financial disclosures show.

Donations from as many as 1,025 individual and businesses in Utah to both sides of the Proposition 8 campaign totaled about $3.8 million, according to new filings with California's secretary of state, with more than 70 percent going to groups supporting the successful measure.

This is unnerving. And, most disconcerting, not at all surprising.

The California State Supreme court will begin hearing arguments on Prop 8 starting March 5. Be sure to watch it all go down at 9am on the California Channel. (Also, hey, no way, we have a California Channel! Who knew?)

Check out Stop8.org for comprehensive coverage about civil marriage equality in California.

After all the brouhaha the Yes On 8 sect put the courts through finally subsided -- trying to keep proposition 8 donor name hidden, even though they were the first ones to threaten physical, emotional, and financial harm to those who donate to No on 8 -- a new batch of prop. 8 donor names was released today. If you recall, proposition 8, the anti-same sex marriage amendment, passed in November. The amendment, if given the green light by the state supreme court, will effectively allow hate, discrimination and certain religious beliefs into the state constitution.

You can find the new names on the Secretary of State's site. (Also, their website sucks. That's the real news story here, that even though California leads the way on internet technology, the state's own site is an embarrassing, unusable relic.) Aside from Ignatius Press in Napa and former San Francisco broadcaster Gary Bryan, we don't recognize many of the names on the list. But we're sure there are more to come.

So there you have it.

On a related note, Stop.org set up a Twitter feed. Created by SFist Mattymatt, we cannot recommend this site enough.