How Special Interests Built a Congressman
The political collapse of former Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), who resigned from Congress amid multiple sexual assault allegations, has prompted uncomfortable questions about who enabled his rise. According to Fish Stark, son of the late 20-term Congressman Pete Stark, the answer lies in a calculated 2012 campaign where special interests selected a compliant candidate over one of conviction.
The 2012 Ouster
Pete Stark represented California's East Bay for four decades, building a reputation as a blunt progressive who championed single-payer healthcare, opposed the Iraq War, and was Congress's first openly atheist member. His willingness to challenge unconditional military aid to Israel made him a target. In 2012, political action committees aligned with the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, alongside major pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and Merck, poured resources into defeating him.
Their vehicle was Eric Swalwell, then a 31-year-old Dublin city councilman with what Stark describes as "no identifiable beliefs about anything." Swalwell collaborated with local Tea Party elements and corporate developers. He attacked Pete Stark's atheism, criticizing his vote against "In God We Trust" as the national motto, and even targeted Stark's family, including a then-10-year-old sibling. "He borrowed the religious right's playbook to take out a progressive, with pro-Netanyahu and big pharma money funding it all," Stark writes.
Warnings Ignored
Pete Stark recognized the threat, publicly calling Swalwell a "slimeball" and a "f---ing crook" during a 2012 debate, accusing him of trading zoning privileges for campaign cash while on the Dublin city council. Media largely framed this as an elder statesman's embarrassing outburst. However, in 2019, developer James Tong was convicted of illegally funneling $38,000 to Swalwell's campaigns, lending retrospective credibility to Stark's charges. Other red flags, like Swalwell's college stunt impersonating an MTV crew to film a bikini contest, were already known.
Stark, then 80 and described as curmudgeonly, lost the race. "The people who bankrolled his replacement got exactly what they paid for," his son asserts.
The Product of a System
In Congress, Swalwell cultivated a frictionless profile. He voted as a median Democrat despite representing a deeply liberal district, became a frequent MSNBC commentator, and mounted a vapid presidential campaign under the slogan "Go big, be bold." "He was the product the corporate donor class ordered: frictionless, empty, always on-message," Stark argues.
That political career has now imploded. At least five women have accused Swalwell of sexual misconduct, including a former staffer who has credibly alleged rape. The Manhattan District Attorney is investigating. His gubernatorial campaign collapsed as endorsers fled, and he has resigned from Congress. As one commentator put it, the media response has been starkly critical, with figures like Bill Maher offering blunt condemnation.
A Symptom of a Larger Problem
Fish Stark is careful to note he isn't claiming Swalwell's 2012 backers knew he was a sexual predator. Rather, they were aware of his character flaws and chose him because character wasn't the priority. "Swalwell is a symptom. He is what happens when Democrats select for compliance over conviction," he writes. "When the criteria for advancement are pliability and willingness to take direction from the people writing the checks, you shouldn't be surprised when the person you have elevated has no moral compass."
This dynamic of ignored warnings extends beyond Swalwell's district. The broader pattern of Democratic complicity in overlooking allegations against powerful figures has become a recurring theme in party politics.
Stark contrasts his father's deeply held, if difficult, convictions with Swalwell's emptiness. "The people who viewed his conviction as a problem bought the replacement they wanted. They own Swalwell's rise," he states. The lesson, according to Stark, is clear: "When you put someone with no convictions or internal guardrails in power over staff, constituents, and the public trust, you reap what you sow."
He concludes with a warning to his party: "As long as the Democratic Party is afraid of Pete Starks, we'll just keep getting Eric Swalwells." The essay serves as a case study in how the machinery of modern campaigns, fueled by specific interest groups, can elevate individuals whose primary qualification is their usefulness to donors, with potentially devastating consequences. This focus on political expediency over substance mirrors debates in other areas, such as the challenges facing young Americans seeking homeownership as Congress grapples with policy solutions.
