SHOHIN VANCE

SVANCE@KLEINBARD.COM

Direct Dial 215.568.2000

June 8, 2023 

VIA E-MAIL 

Office of General Counsel 

Attn: Lisa J. Stevenson, Esq. 

Acting General Counsel 

Federal Election Commission 

1050 First Street NE 

Washington, DC 20463 

ao@fec.gov

RE: Advisory Opinion Request

Dear Ms. Stevenson: 

Pursuant to 52.U.S.C. § 30108 and 11 C.F.R. § 112.1, Guy for Congress seeks an advisory 

opinion confirming that, under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (the “Act”) and 

the attendant regulations promulgated by the Federal Election Commission (“FEC” or the 

“Commission”), it may pay for the installation of a special security film on the windows of 

Congressman Guy Reschenthaler’s residence. 

I. FACTUAL DISCUSSION 

Guy for Congress (the “Committee”) is registered with the FEC as the principal campaign 

committee of United States Representative Guy Reschenthaler, who is currently a member 

of the United States House of Representatives from Pennsylvania’s 14th Congressional 

District and is running for reelection in 2022.1

As relayed in countless media accounts, instances of violent behavior directed against 

Members of Congress have increased dramatically over the last several years. In 

particular, as protests outside the homes of public officials have become more 

1 FEC, FEC Form 1: Statement of Organization, Guy for Congress (December 6, 2021), 

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/903/202112069469800903/202112069469800903.pdf.

AOR001
May 10, 2023 

Page 2 

commonplace,2 the threats that Members face in their individual private residences have 

become more acute.3

Unfortunately, Congressman Reschenthaler has not been immune from the uptick in such 

violence. Indeed, in the last two years alone, his office has not only received countless 

threats, but has also been the target of violence. Specifically, on April 19, 2022, a man 

verbally harassed and threatened staff at Congressman Reschenthaler’s district office and, 

after leaving for a short period, returned and threw a brick through one of the office 

windows.4

Of equal importance to the present request, these threats have extended beyond 

Congressman Reschenthaler’s office and infiltrated his private residence. For example, in 

2021, while Congressman Reschenthaler was performing routine household tasks in his 

home garage, he was confronted and harassed by two individuals that disagreed with 

official acts taken by the Congressman in connection with the certification of the 2020 

presidential election results. Not long before that incident—approximately, one week 

before the 2020 general election, to be exact—an intruder had trespassed into the backyard 

of Congressman Reschenthaler’s neighbor. Upon information and belief—as reported to 

law enforcement—the neighbor suspected the intruder believed that residence belonged to 

Congressman Reschenthaler. 

Indeed, even outside of his office and private residence, Congressman Reschenthaler has 

been publicly harassed and accosted specifically and expressly in connection with his role 

as a member of Congress. For instance, on August 28, 2020—after President Trump 

officially accepted the Republican Party’s nomination for President of the United States—

Congressman Reschenthaler, his wife, and several other members of Congress were 

2 See, e.g., Eliza Tebo, Demonstrators Gather At Sen. Lindsey Graham’s D.C. Home Urging ‘No 

Confirmation Before Inauguration’, DCist (September 21, 2020), https://dcist.com/story/20/09/21/noconfirmation-before-inauguration/. 

3 Zach Schonfeld, Collins says she ‘wouldn’t be surprised’ if a lawmaker is killed amid rise in 

threats, The Hill (October 2, 2022), https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3671136-collins-says-she-wouldntbe-surprised-if-a-lawmaker-is-killed-amid-rise-in-threats/. (discussing increased violence against members 

of Congress, including an incident during which a window at Senator Collins’s home was smashed); see also 

Amanda Holpuch, Pelosi’s Husband Is Gravely Injured in Hammer Attack by Intruder, The New York 

Times (October 28, 2022) https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/28/us/politics/nancy-paul-pelosi-attack.html. 

(recounting a violent intruder’s assault of Speaker Pelosi’s husband). 

4 Paul Peirce, Hempfield man jailed after police say he disrupted a funeral, broke a window at 

congressman’s office, TribLive (April 22, 2022), https://triblive.com/local/westmoreland/hempfield-manjailed-after-police-say-he-disrupted-a-funeral-broke-window-at-congressmans-office/. 

AOR002
May 10, 2023 

Page 3 

accosted by violent protesters as they left the White House.5 As the incident unfolded, it 

became apparent that the protesters not only recognized that Congressman Reschenthaler 

and his colleagues were elected officials, but also expressly targeted them because of this 

fact. In addition, Congressman Reschenthaler has also received numerous concrete 

threats of violence, which have been reported to Capitol Police. 

It also bears noting that in January 2023, Congressman Reschenthaler was named Chief 

Deputy Whip, making him an integral part of the House majority’s leadership team. As a 

result, Congressman Reschenthaler has been the subject of increased public attention, 

which, in turn, is reasonably likely to make him even more of a target than he was before. 

In response, Congressman Reschanthaler has taken various steps to address the increased 

threat of violence in his private residence, including the installation of security cameras, 

and a home alarm system. These measures are, of course, helpful in alerting law 

enforcement to the presence of intruders after the fact. But they do not—and cannot—

shield Congressman Reschenthaler from violent acts that may be perpetrated against him. 

As such, the Committee seeks to pay for the installation of a special security film on the 

windows at Congressman Reschenthaler’s home, which is situated only a few feet from a 

public sidewalk. The residential security window film is a durable polyester film applied 

to the interior of glass windows to form a shatter-resistant barrier, protecting those inside 

the structure from incoming projectiles. Furthermore, because the security window film 

holds the glass in place, it also prevents any broken glass shards from flying through the 

air, which often exacerbates injuries caused by projectile thrown through a window.6 The 

approximate total cost to the Committee would be $8,000. 

Several features of this proposed security measure bear highlighting.7 First, the sole 

function of the security film is to provide for the safety of those within the structure in the 

event a projectile is thrown at the window. Indeed, because the clear film does not change 

the physical appearance of a residence, it has no aesthetic value whatsoever. Second, the 

security film is not a permanent fixture and, if properly applied, can generally be removed. 

Third, the specific film in question has been well-recognized for its effectiveness and, in 

fact, has been installed in numerous federal office buildings. 

5 Lisa Lambert, Republican senator, swarmed by protesters after Trump speech, calls for FBI probe, 

Reuters (August 28, 2020) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-washington-paul/republican-senatorswarmed-by-protesters-after-trump-speech-calls-for-fbi-probe-idUSKBN25O0LW. 

6 U.S. Film Crew, https://www.usfilmcrew.com/residential/security-window-film-installation/. 

7 Of course, the Committee will pay the fair market value for the film and installation. See, e.g., 

Adv. Op. 2022-02, at 5 n.4 (permitting use of campaign funds for the proposed security upgrade, but noting 

that “[t]he Commission assumes that your principal campaign committee will pay the fair market value of 

the locking steel gate and its installation to prevent the acceptance of potentially impermissible in-kind 

contributions from vendors”). 

AOR003
May 10, 2023 

Page 4 

II. QUESTION POSED 

The Committee seeks confirmation that under the Act, as well as the Commission’s 

regulations and prior advice on the matter, the Committee may pay for the cost and 

installation of a security window film to protect Congressman Reschenthaler’s home. 

III. LEGAL ANALYSIS 

Under the Act, campaign funds may properly be used for, among other things, “ordinary 

and necessary expenses incurred in connection with the duties of the individual as a holder 

of Federal office,” 52 U.S.C. § 30114(a)(2), and any other lawful purpose that does not fall 

within the Act’s proscription against “personal use.” See id. at § 30114(a)(6) (citing 52 

U.S.C § 30114(b) (prohibiting “personal use)).8 In turn, the term “personal use” is defined 

as “any use of funds in a campaign account...to fulfill a commitment, obligation or expense 

of any person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s campaign or duties as a 

Federal officeholder.”9

While the regulations classify certain expenditures as per se “personal use,” residential 

security is not among those items.10 Rather, whether campaign funds may be used in 

connection with such expenses is subject to a case-by-case determination, in accordance 

with the basic definitional criteria referenced above.11 In conducting this assessment, “the 

Commission has long recognized that if a candidate ‘can reasonably show that the expenses 

at issue resulted from campaign or officeholder activities, the Commission will not consider 

the use to be personal use.’”12 In the specific context of security measures at a Member’s 

residence, the Commission has repeatedly acknowledged that such expenses would not 

necessarily be incurred irrespective of their official duties, given “the implications of the 

heightened threat environment faced by members of Congress collectively,”13 Accordingly, 

the Commission has consistently opined that Members of Congress may use campaign 

8 52 U.S.C. § 30114(b)(1); see also 11 C.F.R. § 113.2(a)-(e). 

9 11 C.F.R. § 113.1(g). 

10 11 C.F.R. § 113.1(g)(1)(i)(A)-(J). 

11 Id. 

12 FEC Adv. Op. 2020-06 (Escobar), https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/aos/2020-06/2020-06.pdf (quoting 

Personal Use of Campaign Funds, 60 Fed. Reg. 7862, 7867 (Feb. 9, 1995)). 

13 FEC Adv. Op. 2020-06 (Escobar), https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/aos/2020-06/2020-06.pdf (citing 

Personal Use of Campaign Funds, 60 Fed. Reg. 7862, 7867 (Feb. 9, 1995)). 

AOR004
May 10, 2023 

Page 5 

funds for residential security upgrades that do not result in any structural improvement 

and are not intended to increase the value of their property.14

Indeed, the Commission has been particularly mindful of the need for such expenditures 

in recent years. Specifically, in 2017, the United States Capitol Police recommended that 

all Members upgrade their residential security due to a heightened threat environment. 

As a result, the Commission issued an Advisory Opinion expressly authorizing Members 

to use campaign funds to pay for costs associated with residential security systems that 

are not structural improvements, without such constituting personal use of campaign 

funds.15 Moreover, the Commission later emphasized that such expenditures are 

appropriate, regardless of whether a Member faces a specific or ongoing threat and, 

furthermore, a Member is not required to obtain an individualized assessment from 

Capitol Police.16

In an Advisory Opinion issued in March 2021, the Commission once again acknowledged 

the increasing need for Members to “take proactive measures to protect themselves and 

their immediate families due to threats arising from their status as officeholders” and, 

thus, concluded that use of campaign funds for security personnel when a Member is not 

under the protection of federal agents does not constitute an impermissible “personal 

use.”17

In April 2022, responding to the growing threat to Members in the current political climate, 

the Commission issued another Advisory Opinion, concluding that the use of campaign 

funds to purchase and install a structural locking steel security gate to secure the 

perimeter of a Member’s property did not constitute an impermissible “personal use” under 

the Act.18 In this regard, the Commission clarified that, notwithstanding its prior 

references to permissible “non-structural” security measures, a security upgrades is not 

necessarily prohibited merely because it can properly be characterized as “structural.”19

Rather, the assessment is made on a case-by-case basis. In finding that the proposed 

measure was not an impermissible “personal use” of campaign funds, the Commission 

highlighted two crucial points: first, the structural steel gate was not intended to improve 

14 See, e.g., FEC Adv. Op. 2009-08 (Gallegly), https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/aos/2009-08/AO-2009-

08.pdf; FEC Adv. Op. 2011-05 (Terry), https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/aos/2011-05/AO-2011-05.pdf; FEC 

Adv. Op. 2011-17 (Giffords), https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/aos/2011-17/AO-2011-17.pdf. 

15 See FEC Adv. Op. 2017-07 (Sergeant at Arms), https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/aos/2017-07/2017-

07.pdf. 

16 See id. 

17 FEC Adv. Op. 2021-03 (NRSC and NRCC), https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/aos/2021-03/2021-

03.pdf. 

18 See FEC Adv. Op. 2022-02 (Steube), https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/aos/2022-02/2022-02.pdf. 

19 See id.

AOR005
May 10, 2023 

Page 6 

the Member’s home and provided no aesthetic value; and second, it could be removed if the 

Member ever relocates from the residence.20 Moreover, although falling outside of the 

permissible “non-structural security devices” category, the Commission found that due to 

the certain features of the Member’s residence (e.g., its remote location, size, etc.), a 

“lockable barrier to the entrance” of the Member’s property was reasonably necessary.21

Finally, the Commission’s most recent opinion on the subject is also perhaps the most 

instructive. Specifically, in January 2023, the Commission expressly concluded that the 

use of campaign funds to purchase and install “security film on accessible windows to 

prevent surreptitious observation into the residence” was permissible under the Act.22 A 

security film, the Commission concluded, “is a removable security measure designed to 

mitigate potential threats stemming from [a Member of Congress’] duties as a federal 

officeholder, and therefore falls within the category of ‘non-structural devices’ for which 

the use of campaign funds was authorized[.]”23 Accordingly, security film falls into the 

same category as “non-structural security devices,” including cameras, sensors, and 

distress devices.24

Reading the foregoing Advisory Opinions in tandem, it is our understanding that affixing 

the above-described security film onto the windows of Congressman Reschenthaler’s 

residence does not constitute a “personal use” prohibited by the Act. Similar to the facts 

presented in Advisory Opinion 2022-25 (Crapo), the residential security window film is a 

clear protective film undetectable to the naked eye and, therefore “does not provide 

aesthetic or decorative enhancements . . ..”25 Rather, the sole purpose of this security 

measure is to protect the Congressman against the very type of violence previously 

perpetrated not only against his office,26 but also against a current member of the United 

States Senate.27 Moreover, because the residential security window film is not a 

permanent fixture and can be removed, the security film is not a structural alteration or 

20 See id.

21 See id. It also bears noting that the Commission recently confirmed that the use of campaign 

funds for reasonably cybersecurity measures at to protect an officeholder’s home network did not constitute 

an impermissible “personal use,” given that high-level public officials generally face a greater threat of 

cyberattack against their devices and accounts than members of the public. FEC Adv. Op. 2022-17 

(Warren), available at https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/aos/2022-17/2022-17.pdf. 

22 FEC Adv. Op. 2022-25 (Crapo), https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/aos/2022-25/2022-25.pdf. 

(permitting, inter alia, the purchase and installation of an electronic home security system and reinforced 

doors using campaign funds, both of which have been installed in Congressman Reschenthaler’s private 

residence.).

23 See id. 

24 See id. 

25 See, e.g., FEC Adv. Op. 2022-02 (Steube), at 5. 

26 See supra note 4. 

27 See supra note 3. 

AOR006
May 10, 2023 

Page 7 

improvement to the residence and is not intended to increase the value of Congressman 

Reschenthaler’s home.28

Finally, although the proposed residential security window film in Congressman 

Reschanthaler’s residence slightly differs from the security film at issue in Advisory 

Opinion 2022-25, the common thread remains the same: the security film is a removable, 

non-structural enhancement intended to provide an increased security measure. Indeed, 

the proposed residential security window film for Congressman Reschenthaler’s residence 

goes beyond the visual security feature in Advisory Opinion 2022-25 (to prevent 

surreptitious observation) and provides physical safety for Congressman Reschenthaler.29

Under these circumstances—consistent with the Commission’s interpretation of the Act in 

Advisory Opinion 2022-25 and Advisory Opinion 2022-02—the cost of purchasing and 

installing the residential security window film would not constitute a prohibited personal 

use of campaign funds. 

For the foregoing reasons, we ask the Commission to confirm that the Committee may use 

its funds to pay for residential security window film to protect Congressman 

Reschenthaler’s residence. 

28 Assuming arguendo the security upgrade to the windows might have a positive impact on the 

value of Congressman Reschenthaler’s home—a dubious proposition at best—any such increase is 

speculative (as it would be based on the personal preferences of the putative buyer) and would be ancillary 

to the primary purpose of the expenditures. As we understand it, an expenditure that is otherwise proper 

is not rendered impermissible merely because it may have an incidental benefit not associated with its 

main purpose. See, e.g., FEC Adv. Op. 2022-17 (Warren), at 5, available at 

https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/aos/2022-17/2022-17.pdf. (“[T]he fact that others may incidentally benefit 

from the home network cybersecurity measures does not alter the conclusion that protecting Senator 

Warren’s home network is necessary to protect her own personal devices and accounts, which the 

Commission previously recognized is an expense that does not constitute personal use.”). 

29 Furthermore, while we acknowledge that in Advisory Opinion 2022-25, Capitol Police officials 

also endorsed the installation of security film at the Member’s residence, based on our review of the 

pertinent guidance on the subject from the Commission, a recommendation suggesting the adoption of a 

specific prophylactic measure does not appear to be dispositive. See, e.g., Adv. Op. 2022-17 (Warren), at 1-

2. However, to the extent the Commission believes that it would be relevant to its analysis, the Committee 

and Congressman Reschenthaler are prepared to solicit recommendations from law enforcement on the 

matter. 

AOR007
May 10, 2023 

Page 8 

Very truly yours, 

Shohin Vance 

Counsel to Guy for Congress 

AOR008