FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20463

 

 July 13, 2023 

 

ADVISORY OPINION 2023-04 

Shohin Vance

Kleinbard LLC 

1717 Arch Street, Fifth Floor 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Dear Mr. Vance: 

 We are responding to your advisory opinion request on behalf of Guy for Congress (the 

“Committee”) regarding the application of the Federal Election Campaign Act, 52 U.S.C. 

§§ 30101-45 (the “Act”), and Commission regulations to the proposed use of campaign funds to 

pay for the purchase and installation of a special security film on the windows of Congressman 

Guy Reschenthaler’s home. The Commission concludes that the proposed use of campaign 

funds to protect the Congressman’s home and occupants against threats arising from the 

Congressman’s duties as a federal officeholder is a permissible use of campaign funds under the 

Act and Commission regulations. 

Background 

 The facts presented in this advisory opinion are based on your advisory opinion request 

(the “request” or “AOR”) received on June 8, 2023. The Committee is the principal campaign 

committee of Congressman Guy Reschenthaler.

1

 The request lists several incidents of Members 

of Congress facing protests or threats of violent attack at their private residences,

2 stating these 

occurrences have become “more commonplace” and “more acute” over the last several years.3 

1

 See AOR001. See also Guy for Congress, FEC Form 1 (Statement of Organization) (filed Dec. 6, 2021), 

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

2

 AOR002 (citing Eliza Tebo, Demonstrators Gather At Sen. Lindsey Graham’s D.C. Home Urging ‘No 

Confirmation Before Inauguration’, DCist (Sept. 21, 2020), https://dcist.com/story/20/09/21/noconfirmationbefore-inauguration/; Zach Schonfeld, Collins says she ‘wouldn’t be surprised’ if a lawmaker is killed amid rise in 

threats, The Hill (Oct. 2, 2022), https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3671136-collins-says-she-wouldntbesurprised-if-a-lawmaker-is-killed-amid-rise-in-threats/; Amanda Holpuch, Pelosi’s Husband is Gravely Injured in 

Hammer Attack by Intrude, The New York Times (Oct. 28, 2022) 

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

3

 AOR001-2. 
AO 2023-04 (Guy for Congress) 

Page 2 

The request further describes several recent incidents in which Congressman 

Reschenthaler’s district office and private residence have been threatened with or the targets of 

violence. On April 19, 2022, an individual verbally harassed and threatened staff at 

Congressman Reschenthaler’s district office before later returning to throw a brick through one 

of the office’s windows.4

 In 2021, Congressman Reschenthaler “was confronted and harassed [at 

his private residence] by two individuals that disagreed with official acts taken by the 

Congressman in connection with the certification of the 2020 presidential election results.”5 In 

2020, an intruder trespassed in the backyard of Congressman Reschenthaler’s neighbor, who 

reported to law enforcement that he suspected the intruder “believed that residence belonged to 

Congressman Reschenthaler.”6 The request also notes that Congressman Reschenthaler has 

received numerous concrete threats of violence, which have been reported to Capitol Police.7 

Additionally, in January 2023, Congressman Reschenthaler was named Chief Deputy Whip of 

the House Republican Caucus. The request states that this appointment makes Congressman 

Reschenthaler an integral part of the House majority’s leadership team and “the subject of 

increased public attention, which, in turn, is reasonably likely to make him even more of a target 

than he was before.”8

In response to these prior incidents and its growing concerns for future threats, the 

Committee seeks to purchase and install a special security film to the windows of the 

Congressman’s home.9 The request describes the security film as a “clear” and “durable 

polyester film” that will not change the appearance of the home but, when “applied to the interior 

of glass windows [will] form a shatter-resistant barrier, protecting those inside the structure from 

incoming projectiles” and preventing “any broken glass shards from flying through the air.”10 

According to the request, the security film is not a permanent fixture and can generally be 

removed when applied correctly. Further, the film is “well recognized for its effectiveness” and 

“has already been installed in numerous federal office buildings.”11 The Committee has stated it 

would pay the fair market value for the security film and installation.12

4

 AOR002 (citing Paul Peirce, Hempfield man jailed after police say he disrupted a funeral, broke a window 

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

5

 AOR002. 

6

 Id. 

7

 AOR003.

8

 Id. 

9

 Id. 

10 Id.

11 Id. 

12 AOR003 n.7.
AO 2023-04 (Guy for Congress)

Page 3

Question Presented

May the Committee pay for the cost and installation of a security window film to protect 

Congressman Reschenthaler’s home? 

Legal Analysis

Yes, the Committee may pay for the cost and installation of a security window film to 

protect Congressman Reschenthaler’s home. 

The Act identifies six categories of permissible uses of contributions accepted by a 

federal candidate, two of which are “ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in connection 

with duties of the individual as a holder of Federal office,” and “any other lawful purpose” not 

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

The Commission has issued several advisory opinions authorizing the use of campaign funds to 

protect against threats to federal officeholders’ physical safety, on the grounds that the need for 

such security expenses would not exist irrespective of the officeholders’ activities or duties. For 

example, in Advisory Opinions 2022-02 (Steube), 2011-17 (Giffords), 2011-05 (Terry), and 

2009-08 (Gallegly), Members of Congress faced specific and ongoing threats to the safety of 

themselves and their families and sought to use campaign funds for certain home security 

upgrades to protect against those threats. The facts presented in those advisory opinions 

suggested that the threats were motivated by the requestors’ public roles as federal officeholders, 

candidates, or both. The Commission determined in each instance that the expenses for the 

proposed security upgrades would not have existed irrespective of the requestors’ duties as 

federal officeholders or candidates. Therefore, the Commission concluded that the use of 

campaign funds to pay for the security upgrades was permissible under the Act and Commission 

regulations.13

The Commission has also previously considered the implications of the heightened threat 

environment faced by Members of Congress collectively, necessitating increased residential 

security measures even if an individual Member has not received direct threats. For example, in 

Advisory Opinion 2017-07 (Sergeant at Arms), the Commission considered information from the 

House Sergeant at Arms about the threats faced by Members of Congress due to their status as 

federal officeholders, and the recommendations of the Capitol Police that Members of Congress 

install or upgrade residential security systems to protect themselves and their families. In light of 

that information, the Commission concluded that certain costs of installing or upgrading home 

security systems in and around a Member’s residence would constitute ordinary and necessary 

expenses incurred in connection with Members’ duties as federal officeholders and that,

therefore, Members of Congress may use campaign funds to pay reasonable costs associated with 

such home security systems.14

13 See Advisory Opinion 2022-02 (Steube) at 5; Advisory Opinion 2011-17 (Giffords) at 3; Advisory Opinion 

2011-05 (Terry) at 4; and Advisory Opinion 2009-08 (Gallegly) at 4. 

14 Advisory Opinion 2017-07 (Sergeant at Arms) at 3.
AO 2023-04 (Guy for Congress)

Page 4

The Commission has also considered the permissibility of using campaign funds to pay 

for window security film as an authorized security enhancement in response to a heightened 

threat environment. In Advisory Opinion 2022-05 (Crapo), the Commission considered whether 

campaign funds could be used to pay for a series of residential security enhancements 

recommended by the U.S. Capitol Police, including the installation of security film “on all 

accessible windows to prevent surreptitious observation into the residence.”15 The Commission 

determined that window security film, as a removeable security measure designed to mitigate 

potential threats stemming from the Member’s duties as a federal officeholder, falls within the 

category of “non-structural security devices” for which campaign funds could be used, citing 

Advisory Opinion 2017-07 (Sergeant at Arms).16

Here, the Commission again considers whether a federal officeholder may use campaign 

funds to pay for a residential security measure to protect himself and his immediate family from

threats arising from his duties as a federal officeholder. As in Advisory Opinion 2022-05 

(Crapo), the Committee seeks to purchase and install a protective security film to the windows of 

the Congressman’s private residence to protect the Congressman and his family from such 

threats. 

Although the window security film in Advisory Opinion 2022-05 (Crapo) was intended to

prevent surreptitious observation into Senator Crapo’s residence, and here Congressman 

Reschenthaler intends the window film “to form a shatter-resistant barrier, protecting those 

inside the structure from incoming projectiles,”17 in both situations the window film “is a 

removeable security measure designed to mitigate potential threats stemming from the 

[Member]’s duties as a federal officeholder, and therefore falls within the category of 

‘non-structural security devices’ for which the use of campaign funds was authorized in Advisory 

Opinion 2017-07 (Sergeant at Arms).”18 

Based on the facts presented in the request and consistent with prior advisory opinions, 

the Commission concludes that the cost to purchase and install special security film on the 

windows of Congressman Reschenthaler’s home would be an ordinary and necessary expense 

incurred in connection with the Congressman’s duties as a federal officeholder. Accordingly, the 

Committee may use campaign funds to pay that expense. The Commission emphasizes that this 

conclusion is based, in part, on information provided about the current heightened threat 

environment experienced by Members of Congress, as assessed by the Capitol Police, and may 

no longer apply if the threat environment should diminish significantly at some point in the 

future.19

15 Advisory Opinion 2022-05 (Crapo) at 3. 

16 Id. at 5.

17 AOR003.

18 Advisory Opinion 2022-25 (Crapo) at 4-5.

19 See, e.g., Advisory Opinion 2017-07 (Sergeant at Arms) at 4; Advisory Opinion 2022-25 (Crapo) at 5.
AO 2023-04 (Guy for Congress) 

Page 5 

This response constitutes an advisory opinion concerning the application of the Act and 

Commission regulations to the specific transaction or activity set forth in your request.20 The 

Commission emphasizes that, if there is a change in any of the facts or assumptions presented, 

and such facts or assumptions are material to a conclusion presented in this advisory opinion, 

then the requestor may not rely on that conclusion as support for its proposed activity. 

Any person involved in any specific transaction or activity which is indistinguishable in all its 

material aspects from the transaction or activity with respect to which this advisory opinion is 

rendered may rely on this advisory opinion.21 Please note that the analysis or conclusions in this 

advisory opinion may be affected by subsequent developments in the law including, but not 

limited to, statutes, regulations, advisory opinions, and case law. Any advisory opinions cited 

herein are available on the Commission’s website. 

 On behalf of the Commission, 

 Dara Lindenbaum, 

 Chair

20 See 52 U.S.C. § 30108. 

21 See id. § 30108(c)(1)(B).