investor

SACRAMENTO — During the Los Angeles writers’ strike in 2023, Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell wanted to reach out to his donors in Hollywood and ask what he could do to help them. But he didn’t have an easy way to find the screenwriters who backed his many campaigns.

So Swalwell and his congressional chief of staff launched an AI technology company that sifts and analyzes campaign fundraising data.

The company has since been used by dozens of political campaigns, including by Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles). Even Swalwell’s current campaign for California governor hired the artificial intelligence company, called Findraiser.

But some details of Swalwell’s private venture remain unclear, including the company’s investors.

Craig Holman, a governmental ethics expert with the nonprofit consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen, said it’s common and legal for candidates to use their own businesses to promote their campaigns or the campaigns of others, as long as all business interactions are charged at market value.

He said Swalwell can talk about his business privately but cannot do so in relation to his role in Congress, to avoid running afoul of ethics rules barring using one’s position for personal monetary gain.

Holman called it “odd and politically unwise” that Swalwell’s business will not publicly disclose all of its investors.

Swalwell, who has represented Northern California in Congress since 2013, is among the top Democrats in the governor’s race, according to a recent poll, but thus far none of the candidates has a breakaway lead.

Findraiser is close to profitability, his onetime chief of staff, current campaign manager and Findraiser CEO Yardena Wolf said in a podcast interview that aired in October.

The company received more than $67,400 from congressional campaigns in the 2025-26 cycle, according to filings with the federal government.

Members of Congress are not barred from owning outside companies or accepting a small outside salary, with exceptions. Swalwell makes no income from the company, according to filings he has made with the state of California, though he could benefit if the company was ever sold.

“Findraiser is a platform like hundreds of other tools in the market that helps Democratic campaigns communicate more efficiently,” a Swalwell spokesperson said. “Congressman Swalwell and the Findraiser team consulted the House Committee on Ethics on the conception and implementation of the tool every step of the way.”

Still, it highlights how mixing public service and private business can raise ethics questions.

Wolf told The Times that none of Findraiser’s investors have business before Congress, but she declined to reveal the names of the backers.

The fair market value of Findraiser is between $100,001 and $1 million, according to campaign finance documents filed with the state this month.

Swalwell stated on the documents that he is a part owner. Besides the Congress member and Wolf, the other member of the company listed with the state is Paul Mandell, who runs an event business.

The company’s website boasts that it provides a “straightforward AI-powered chatbot that supercharges your fundraising database searches. This first-of-its-kind tool sits on top of your political fundraising database, allowing you to ask simple, intuitive questions and receive the results you need instantly.”

The website also contains testimonials, including from former Democratic National Committee Chair Jaime Harrison, who says Findraiser provides the AI technology that makes it “easier than ever for campaigns to connect with the right donors and raise what they need to win.”

The amount of money campaigns are paying to use Findraiser is nominal, federal campaign finance records show. During the 2025-26 cycle, Swalwell’s campaign for Congress reported paying Findraiser $6,630. His campaign for governor paid the company $975.

Wolf, in an interview with The Times, declined to provide details about the company’s staff or how much it charges customers.

In her interview with the political podcast “The Great Battlefield,” she recounted that the writers’ strike was the impetus for Findraiser and said Swalwell came up with the name.

She conceded that it is “pretty unusual” for a member of Congress to start a company with his chief of staff. She also said there was “a lot of ethics back and forth — of lawyers and all of that, to make sure that we were aboveboard and that everything is kosher.”

Among other things, Findraiser has helped Swalwell’s campaigns pull in more money, she said. For example, the campaign could identify donors who gave small amounts to Swalwell but larger checks to other politicians, Wolf said.

“We’ve been able to set up meetings with people like that, and they’ve increased their contributions.”

Aside from Wolf, one other staff member who works for both Swalwell’s campaign and his government office is also being paid via a contract to do digital work for Findraiser, Wolf confirmed.

Michael Beckel, director of money in politics reform at Issue One, a bipartisan advocacy group, said that although there is no prohibition on a member of Congress hiring his own company, voters may perceive an issue.

“Voters may see self-dealing as evidence that a candidate is prioritizing personal enrichment over public service, which damages confidence in elections and governmental institutions,” he said.

“If donors give money knowing it will personally benefit the candidate, that undermines the integrity of the political system.”

Swalwell’s campaign declined to respond to Beckel’s statements.

Wolf in her podcast interview last year said the business was “going really well.”

“We have PACs that use it. We have first-time candidates, as well as 20-year incumbents who are using it. We have congressional races and Senate races,” Wolf said.

Around 2024, the company began offering beta testing, she said.

“Obviously, both Eric’s and my network are people who are in the political space and just in our day to day, as we were talking to people, we had people say, ‘Well, I want to use it,’” Wolf said. “And so we had a group of people who ended up beta testing.”

A spokesperson for Swalwell’s campaign said that “Findraiser spread through word of mouth among campaigns across the country. Any decision by a campaign or candidate to utilize the tool is based on their choice and their organization’s strategic prioritization.”

The Times contacted 16 congressional campaigns that reported using Findraiser in recent federal filings. None would tell The Times how they came to hire the company.

Both Schiff and Gomez have endorsed Swalwell in his campaign for governor.

Schiff’s paid about $2,000 for two months of Findraiser services last year. However, Wolf, in her podcast interview, said Findraiser works with Schiff “a lot.”

Ian Mariani, a spokesperson for Schiff’s campaign, said the company “is one of many campaign vendors used by our team, and it helped us engage with several people.”

A group of California trial lawyers is backing a package of bills aimed at policing their industry by ramping up the penalties for attorneys who recruit clients illegally or prioritize the desires of hedge fund investors.

The Consumer Attorneys of California, a prominent trade group, said it is supporting two bills this session meant to crack down on the “small number of bad actors engaged in illegal conduct that threatens to undermine public trust” in the state’s legal bar.

The group said the bills, introduced Monday by Assemblymembers Ash Kalra (D-San José) and Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Los Angeles), were a response to recent Times investigations involving California lawyers. The Times found nine clients within L.A. County’s $4-billion sex-abuse settlement who said they were paid to sue and, in some cases, fabricate claims that became part of the historic payout. Another story examined opaque investor financing arrangements used by some firms.

“We’re not trying to insulate ourselves from accountability,” said Douglas Saeltzer, president of the attorney group, in an interview. “There needs to be consequences.”

The bill introduced by Zbur would disbar any attorney who is convicted of illegally soliciting clients. Kalra’s bill would ban private equity firms and hedge funds from dictating case strategy after giving money to a law firm.

Plaintiff’s attorneys say the legislative push is an attempt to clean up their profession’s image. It comes amid efforts by companies and governments frequently targeted by lawsuits to rein in a barrage of litigation.

Uber is pushing a measure for the November ballot that would limit how much lawyers can collect in fees for car crash cases, encouraging Californians to “stop the billboard lawyer scam.” A coalition of California counties has simultaneously begun circulating language to lawmakers that would limit attorneys’ ability to sue over older sex-abuse cases, pointing to recent allegations of fraud.

Zbur’s legislation, Assembly Bill 2039, would require the State Bar strip the license of any attorney with a felony conviction for a practice known as capping, in which law firms directly solicit or procure clients to sign up for lawsuits. Currently, attorneys convicted of capping can face suspension or probation, but are eligible to keep their license.

Under the bill, the attorney also would be disbarred for a misdemeanor capping conviction if the lawyer “acted knowingly and for financial gain.”

“It really is making very clear that if you’re engaging in this kind of capping, then there’s going to be a consequence,” Zbur said.

All clients who said they were paid to sue L.A. County over sex abuse were represented by Downtown LA Law Group, one of Southern California’s largest personal injury firms. The firm, also known as DTLA, is under investigation by the district attorney, the State Bar and L.A. County.

DTLA has denied any wrongdoing and said its lawyers “operate with unwavering integrity, prioritizing client welfare.”

Zbur’s bill also would provide whistleblower protections to people who report on attorney misconduct and tighten the rules around client loans. California is one of the few states where lawyers can lend money directly to clients.

Other states have barred the practice, concerned that direct loans give an attorney too much leverage over their clients.

The second bill introduced Monday, AB 2305, is aimed at the rising trend of private equity firms and hedge funds lending money to law firms and profiting from the payouts. The Times reported in December that investors were financing some of the flood of sex-abuse litigation against L.A. County.

Supporters of litigation finance say it gives attorneys the funding they need to take on deep-pocketed corporations and represent victims who can’t afford to sue on their own. Critics say investors can secretly sway case strategy, putting their profit before the best interests of a client.

“These Wall Street investors are salivating,” Kalra said. “This is just gonna clearly say, ‘No, no more. We’re not gonna allow these types of investments to influence the practice of law.’”

Kalra’s bill would bar investors from weighing in on litigation, such as who the firm should take on as a client and when they should settle a case. Any contracts that allow investor influence would be void under the law.

It’s unclear how the restrictions would be enforced. It’s often difficult to tell when an investor is financing a firm’s caseload, much less whether they’re exerting influence on a case.

Lawyers already are barred under the State Bar’s rules from allowing a third party to dictate case strategy and are barred in many cases from sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer.

“We’re finding that’s not enough,” Kalra said. “We actually need clear statutory safeguards.”

The morning after Netflix clinched its deal to buy Warner Bros., Paramount Skydance Chairman David Ellison assembled a war room of trusted advisors, including his billionaire father, Larry Ellison.

Furious at Warner Bros. Discovery Chief David Zaslav for ending the auction, the Ellisons and their team began plotting their comeback on that crisp December day.

To rattle Warner Bros. Discovery and its investors, they launched a three-front campaign: a lawsuit, a hostile takeover bid and direct lobbying of the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress.

“There was a master battle plan — and it was extremely disciplined,” said one auction insider who was not authorized to comment publicly.

Netflix stunned the industry late Thursday by pulling out of the bidding, clearing the way for Paramount to claim the company that owns HBO, HBO Max, CNN, TBS, Food Network and the Warner Bros. film and television studios in Burbank. The deal was valued at more than $111 billion.

The streaming giant’s reversal came just hours after co-Chief Executive Ted Sarandos met with Atty Gen. Pam Bondi and a deputy at the White House. It was a cordial session, but the Trump officials told Sarandos that his deal was facing significant hurdles in Washington, according to a person close to the administration who was not authorized to comment publicly.

Even before that meeting, the tide had turned for Paramount in a swell of power, politics and brinkmanship.

“Netflix played their cards well; however, Paramount played their cards perfectly,” said Jonathan Miller, chief executive of Integrated Media Co. “They did exactly what they had to do and when they had to do it — which was at the very last moment.”

Key to victory was Larry Ellison, his $200-billion fortune and his connections to President Trump and congressional Republicans.

Paramount also hired Trump’s former antitrust chief, attorney Makan Delrahim, to quarterback the firm’s legal and regulatory action.

Republicans during a Senate hearing this month piled onto Sarandos with complaints about potential monopolistic practices and “woke” programming.

David Ellison skipped that hearing. This week, however, he attended Trump’s State of the Union address in the Capitol chambers, a guest of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). The two men posed, grinning and giving a thumbs-up, for a photo that was posted to Graham’s X account.

David Ellison, the chairman and chief executive of Paramount Skydance Corp., walks through Statuary Hall to the State of the Union address at the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 24, 2026.

(Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images)

On Friday, Netflix said it had received a $2.8-billion payment — a termination fee Paramount agreed to pay to send Netflix on its way.

Long before David Ellison and his family acquired Paramount and CBS last summer, the 43-year-old tech scion and aircraft pilot already had his sights set on Warner Bros. Discovery.

Paramount’s assets, including MTV, Nickelodeon and the Melrose Avenue movie studio, have been fading. Ellison recognized he needed the more robust company — Warner Bros. Discovery — to achieve his ambitions.

“From the very beginning, our pursuit of Warner Bros. Discovery has been guided by a clear purpose: to honor the legacy of two iconic companies while accelerating our vision of building a next-generation media and entertainment company,” David Ellison said in a Friday statement. “We couldn’t be more excited for what’s ahead.”

Warner’s chief, Zaslav, who had initially opposed the Paramount bid, added: “We look forward to working with Paramount to complete this historic transaction.”

Netflix, in a separate statement, said it was unwilling to go beyond its $82.7-billion proposal that Warner board members accepted Dec. 4.

“We believe we would have been strong stewards of Warner Bros.’ iconic brands, and that our deal would have strengthened the entertainment industry and preserved and created more production jobs,” Sarandos and co-Chief Executive Greg Peters said in a statement.

“But this transaction was always a ‘nice to have’ at the right price, not a ‘must have’ at any price,” the Netflix chiefs said.

Netflix may have miscalculated the Ellison family’s determination when it agreed Feb. 16 to allow Paramount back into the bidding.

The Los Gatos, Calif.-based company already had prevailed in the auction, and had an agreement in hand. Its next step was a shareholder vote.

“They didn’t need to let Paramount back in, but there was a lot of pressure on them to make sure the process wouldn’t be challenged,” Miller said.

In addition, Netflix’s stock had also been pummeled — the company had lost a quarter of its value — since investors learned the company was making a Warner run.

Upon news that Netflix had withdrawn, its shares soared Friday nearly 14% to $96.24.

Netflix Chief Executive Ted Sarandos arrives at the White House on Feb. 26, 2026.

(Andrew Leyden / Getty Images)

Invited back into the auction room, Paramount unveiled a much stronger proposal than the one it submitted in December.

The elder Ellison had pledged to personally guarantee the deal, including $45.7 billion in equity required to close the transaction. And if bankers became worried that Paramount was too leveraged, the tech mogul agreed to put in more money in order to secure the bank financing.

That promise assuaged Warner Bros. Discovery board members who had fretted for weeks that they weren’t sure Ellison would sign on the dotted line, according to two people close to the auction who were not authorized to comment.

Paramount’s pressure campaign had been relentless, first winning over theater owners, who expressed alarm over Netflix’s business model that encourages consumers to watch movies in their homes.

During the last two weeks, Sarandos got dragged into two ugly controversies.

First, famed filmmaker James Cameron endorsed Paramount, saying a Netflix takeover would lead to massive job losses in the entertainment industry, which is already reeling from a production slowdown in Southern California that has disrupted the lives of thousands of film industry workers.

Then, a week ago, Trump took aim at Netflix board member Susan Rice, a former high-level Obama and Biden administration official. In a social media post, Trump called Rice a “no talent … political hack,” and said that Netflix must fire her or “pay the consequences.”

The threat underscored the dicey environment for Netflix.

Additionally, Paramount had sowed doubts about Netflix among lawmakers, regulators, Warner investors and ultimately the Warner board.

Paramount assured Warner board members that it had a clear path to win regulatory approval so the deal would quickly be finalized. In a show of confidence, Delrahim filed to win the Justice Department’s blessing in December — even though Paramount didn’t have a deal.

This month, a deadline for the Justice Department to raise issues with Paramount’s proposed Warner takeover passed without comment from the Trump regulators.

“Analysts believe the deal is likely to close,” TD Cowen analysts said in a Friday report. “While Paramount-WBD does present material antitrust risks (higher pay TV prices, lower pay for TV/movie workers), analysts also see a key pro-competitive effect: improved competition in streaming, with Paramount+ and HBO Max representing a materially stronger counterweight to #1 Netflix.”

Throughout the battle, David Ellison relied on support from his father, attorney Delrahim, and three key board members: Oracle Executive Vice Chair Safra A. Catz; RedBird Capital Partners founder Gerry Cardinale; and Justin Hamill, managing director of tech investment firm Silver Lake.

In the final days, David Ellison led an effort to flip Warner board members who had firmly supported Netflix. With Paramount’s improved offer, several began leaning toward the Paramount deal.

On Tuesday, Warner announced that Paramount’s deal was promising.

On Thursday, Warner’s board determined Paramount’s deal had topped Netflix. That’s when Netflix surrendered.

“Paramount had a fulsome, 360-degree approach,” Miller said. “They approached it financially. … They understood the regulatory environment here and abroad in the EU. And they had a game plan for every aspect.”

On Friday, Paramount shares rose 21% to $13.51.

It was a reversal of fortunes for David Ellison, who appeared on CNBC just three days after that war room meeting in December.

“We put the company in play,” David Ellison told the CNBC anchor that day. “We’re really here to finish what we started.”

Times staff writer Ana Cabellos and Business Editor Richard Verrier contributed to this report.