This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

78201 

Vol. 89, No. 186 

Wednesday, September 25, 2024 

1 52 U.S.C. 30101–45. 

2 Id. 30111(d). 

3 52 U.S.C. 30114(a); see also 11 CFR 113.2(a)–(e). 

4 52 U.S.C. 30114(b)(2); see also 11 CFR 113.1(g) 

(defining ‘‘personal use’’). 

5See 52 U.S.C. 30114(b)(2); 11 CFR 113.1(g)(1)(i). 

6See 11 CFR 113.1(g)(1)(ii) (providing nonexhaustive list of expenses to be determined for 

personal use on a case-by-case basis). 

7Personal Use of Campaign Funds, 60 FR 7862, 

7867 (Feb. 9, 1995). 

8See Advisory Opinion 2022–02 (Steube) at 5 

(approving use of campaign funds for the cost of a 

locking steel security gate at the federal 

officeholder’s residence); Advisory Opinion 2020– 

06 (Escobar) at 2 (authorizing the use of campaign 

funds for security lighting and wiring at a federal 

officeholder’s residence); Advisory Opinion 2011– 

17 (Giffords) at 3 (approving use of campaign funds 

for installing improved exterior lighting, improved 

locks, and a duress alarm button); Advisory 

Opinion 2011–05 (Terry) at 4 (approving use of 

campaign funds for installation of an exterior closed 

circuit television monitor); Advisory Opinion 2009– 

08 (Gallegly) at 4 (approving use of campaign funds 

for non-structural upgrades to home security 

system). 

9Additionally, in Advisory Opinion 2020–06 

(Escobar), the Commission specified that the 

requested wiring and lighting costs ‘‘constitute an 

integral part of an ordinary and necessary expense 

that may be paid with campaign funds.’’ Advisory 

Opinion 2020–06 (Escobar) at 4. Likewise, in 

Advisory Opinion 2022–02 (Steube), the 

Commission stated that the requested locking steel 

gate at the entrance to the property was a 

‘‘necessary component’’ of a residential security 

system and the costs of which ‘‘constitute an 

integral part of an ordinary and necessary expense 

that may be paid with campaign funds.’’ Advisory 

Opinion 2022–02 (Steube) at 5. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

11 CFR Part 113 

[Notice 2024–22] 

Use of Campaign Funds for Candidate 

and Officeholder Security 

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Election 

Commission is amending its regulations 

regarding the use of campaign funds to 

pay for security measures for federal 

candidates, officeholders, and members 

of their family and staff. The 

Commission is adopting this rule to 

codify several Commission advisory 

opinions that authorize the use of 

campaign funds to pay for certain 

security measures and address 

additional issues raised in those 

advisory opinions. 

DATES: The effective date is January 1, 

2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert M. Knop, Assistant General 

Counsel for Policy, Luis M. Lipchak, 

Attorney, or Joseph P. Wenzinger, 

Attorney, 1050 First Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694–1650 

or (800) 424–9530. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission is amending its regulations 

at 11 CFR 113 to clarify that federal 

candidates and officeholders may use 

campaign funds to pay for security 

measures so long as the security 

measures address ongoing dangers or 

threats that would not exist irrespective 

of the individual’s status or duties as a 

federal candidate or officeholder. The 

Commission is amending its regulations 

consistent with prior advisory opinions 

that authorized such spending on 

certain security measures, including 

non-structural security devices; 

structural security devices; security 

personnel and services; and 

cybersecurity software, devices, and 

services. The Commission’s 

amendments to the regulations also 

address additional issues raised in prior 

advisory opinions. 

Transmitting Final Rules to Congress 

Before promulgating rules or 

regulations to carry out the provisions of 

the Federal Election Campaign Act of 

1971, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’),1 the 

Commission transmits the rules or 

regulations to the Speaker of the House 

of Representatives and the President of 

the Senate for a thirty-legislative-day 

review period.2 The effective date of the 

final rule is January 1, 2025. 

Explanation and Justification 

I. Background 

A. Act and Commission Regulations 

The Act identifies six categories of 

permissible uses of contributions and 

donations accepted by a federal 

candidate, two of which are ‘‘ordinary 

and necessary expenses incurred in 

connection with the duties of the 

individual as a holder of Federal office,’’ 

and ‘‘any other lawful purpose not 

prohibited by 52 U.S.C. 30114(b).’’ 3

Under 52 U.S.C. 30114(b), contributions 

accepted by a candidate may not be 

converted to ‘‘personal use’’ by any 

person. 

The Act and Commission regulations 

define ‘‘personal use’’ as the use of 

campaign funds ‘‘to fulfill any 

commitment, obligation, or expense of a 

person that would exist irrespective of 

the candidate’s election campaign or 

individual’s duties as a holder of 

Federal office.’’ 4 The Act and 

Commission regulations provide a nonexhaustive list of expenses that, when 

paid using campaign funds, constitute 

per se conversion of those funds to 

personal use.5 The Commission 

determines on a case-by-case basis 

whether the use of campaign funds to 

pay expenses other than those listed 

would be a prohibited conversion of the 

funds to personal use.6

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.’’ 7

B. Security Measures 

Neither the Act nor Commission 

regulations identify the use of campaign 

funds to pay for the costs of security 

measures for federal candidates or 

officeholders as per se personal use. In 

numerous advisory opinions, however, 

the Commission has permitted the use 

of campaign funds to pay for various 

security measures for federal candidates 

or officeholders. 

The Commission has issued several 

advisory opinions authorizing the use of 

campaign funds for certain home 

security upgrades to protect against 

threats to the physical safety of federal 

officeholders and their families.8 The 

facts presented in those advisory 

opinions indicated 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 candidate’s election 

campaign or the individual’s duties as a 

federal officeholder.9 Therefore, the 

Commission concluded that the use of 

campaign funds to pay for the security 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
78202 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

10See Advisory Opinion 2022–02 (Steube) at 5; 

Advisory Opinion 2020–06 (Escobar) at 2; Advisory 

Opinion 2011–17 (Giffords) at 3; Advisory Opinion 

2011–05 (Terry) at 4; Advisory Opinion 2009–08 

(Gallegly) at 4. 

11Advisory Opinion 2017–07 (Sergeant at Arms) 

at 3. 

12Advisory Opinion 2022–05 (Crapo) at 3. 

13Advisory Opinion 2022–05 (Crapo) at 5; 

Advisory Opinion 2023–04 (Guy for Congress) at 4. 

14 Id. 

15See id. at 3. 

16See Advisory Opinion 2018–15 (Wyden) at 4 

(permitting use of campaign funds for cybersecurity 

expenses including hardware, software, consulting 

services, and emergency assistance); Advisory 

Opinion 2022–17 (Warren) at 5 (approving use of 

campaign funds for the incremental costs of 

professionally managed cybersecurity services for 

ongoing network monitoring, patch management, 

backup management, and remote incident 

remediation). 

17See Advisory Opinion 2022–17 (Warren) at 5. 

18Candidate Salary, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’), 89 FR 24738 (April 9, 

2024), https://sers.fec.gov/fosers/ 

showpdf.htm?docid=425136. 

19New paragraph (g)(10) also requires 

disbursements for security measures to be for the 

usual and normal charge and explains the meaning 

of usual and normal charge. 

20Three comments received from individuals 

were not responsive to the NPRM. 

upgrades was permissible under the Act 

and Commission regulations.10

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 response to those 

threats. 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 that 

Member’s duties as a federal 

officeholder and that, therefore, 

Members of Congress may use campaign 

funds to pay reasonable costs associated 

with such home security systems.11

In two advisory opinions, the 

Commission has also considered 

whether campaign funds may be used to 

pay for window security film as an 

authorized security enhancement in 

response to a heightened threat 

environment faced by federal 

officeholders. 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.’’ 12 Similarly, in Advisory 

Opinion 2023–04 (Guy for Congress), 

the Commission considered whether 

campaign funds could be used to pay for 

the costs to purchase and install a 

security window film to protect a 

Member of Congress’s home. The 

Commission determined in both 

instances that window security film, as 

a removeable security measure designed 

to mitigate potential threats stemming 

from the Members’ duties as federal 

officeholders, falls within the category 

of ‘‘non-structural security devices’’ for 

which campaign funds could be used, 

citing Advisory Opinion 2017–07 

(Sergeant at Arms).13

The Commission also has permitted 

the use of campaign funds to pay for 

security measures beyond home security 

upgrades. In Advisory Opinion 2021–03 

(NRSC et al.), the Commission 

authorized the use of campaign funds to 

pay for ‘‘bona fide, legitimate, 

professional personal security 

personnel’’ as ordinary and necessary 

expenses incurred in connection with 

an officeholder’s duties.14 The 

Commission concluded that such 

expenses were permissible due to the 

threats arising from members’ status as 

federal officeholders, including the 

heightened threat environment faced by 

Members of Congress collectively.15

Last, in two advisory opinions, the 

Commission authorized the use of 

campaign funds to pay for reasonable 

cybersecurity expenses as ordinary and 

necessary expenses incurred in 

connection with the requestors’ duties 

as federal officeholders.16 In those 

opinions, the Commission also 

determined that the incidental benefit to 

others of cybersecurity measures, like 

the incidental benefit to others of home 

security measures to protect against 

physical harm, do not change the 

conclusion that such expenses are 

ordinary and necessary expenses 

incurred in connection with a federal 

officeholder’s duties.17

C. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

On April 9, 2024, the Commission 

published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’) in the Federal 

Register proposing to amend its 

regulations to authorize the use of 

campaign funds to pay for security 

measures to protect federal candidates 

and officeholders.18

The Commission’s regulations at 11 

CFR 113.1(g)(1) through (9) address the 

personal use of campaign funds. In the 

NPRM, the Commission proposed 

adding a new paragraph (g)(10) to 

address the use of campaign funds for 

security measures. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(10) provided 

that federal candidates and 

officeholders may use campaign funds 

to pay for the reasonable costs of 

security measures so long as the security 

measures address ongoing dangers or 

threats that would not exist irrespective 

of the individual’s status or duties as a 

federal candidate or officeholder.19

It included four subparagraphs as 

follows: 

• New 11 CFR 113.1(g)(10)(i), to 

identify non-structural security devices 

as a category of security measures for 

which reasonable expenses would not 

be personal use and provide a nonexhaustive list of examples of nonstructural security devices. 

• New 11 CFR 113.1(g)(10)(ii), to 

identify structural security devices as a 

category of security measures for which 

reasonable expenses would not be 

personal use and include a nonexhaustive list of examples of structural 

security devices. 

• New 11 CFR 113.1(g)(10)(iii), to 

identify security personnel and services 

as a category of security measures for 

which reasonable expenses would not 

be personal use. 

• New 11 CFR 113.1(g)(10)(iv), to 

identify cybersecurity software, devices 

and services as a category of security 

measures for which reasonable expenses 

would not be personal use. 

D. Public Comments on the NPRM 

The Commission received 14 timely 

comments and two late comments in 

response to the NPRM. Seven comments 

were submitted by or on behalf of 

organizations, and nine were from 

individuals. 

The comments universally supported 

the Commission’s proposal to authorize 

the use of campaign funds to pay for 

certain security measures for federal 

candidates and officeholders and the 

Commission’s proposal to include a 

non-exhaustive list of examples for 

which reasonable expenses would not 

be deemed personal use.20 Commenters 

agreed with the Commission’s rationale 

that federal candidates and 

officeholders should be able to spend 

campaign funds for security measures 

given the safety and security threats that 

are faced by individuals running 

campaigns and holding federal office. 

And commenters broadly cited the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 78203 

22The new regulation defines ‘‘usual and normal 

charge’’ as, in the case of goods, the price of those 

goods in the market in which they are ordinarily 

purchased and, in the case of services, the hourly 

or piecework charge for the services at a 

commercially reasonable rate prevailing at the time 

the services are rendered. See also 11 CFR 

100.52(d)(2) (defining ‘‘usual and normal charge’’ 

generally). 

23Brennan Center for Justice, Comment at 11–12 

(June 10, 2024), https://sers.fec.gov/fosers/ 

showpdf.htm?docid=425200. 

24Campaign Legal Center, Comment at 3 (June 10, 

2024), https://sers.fec.gov/fosers/ 

showpdf.htm?docid=425201. 

25 Id. 

threats faced by candidates and 

officeholders and referred to specific 

incidents of threats and harassment that 

have occurred involving candidates and 

officeholders at the local, state, and 

federal levels. 

Although the comments broadly 

supported the Commission’s proposal, 

some raised concerns, particularly 

regarding the risks of improper use of 

campaign funds under the pretext of 

security spending, such as for security 

services that may not be bona fide, 

legitimate, and professional, as 

discussed further below. Commenters 

also suggested two additions to the 

proposed rule, most notably (1) to allow 

campaign funds to be used to pay for 

security expenses for the staff and 

family of candidates and officeholders 

in addition to the candidates and 

officeholders themselves, and (2) to 

clarify that any security services used by 

the federal candidate or officeholder 

must be bona fide, legitimate, and 

professional. The Commission agrees 

with these commenters and, 

accordingly, adopts the proposed rule 

with these two additions, as discussed 

below. 

II. Revised 11 CFR Part 113.1— 

Definitions 

After reviewing public comments 

received in response to the NPRM, the 

Commission is amending its regulations 

regarding the use of campaign funds to 

allow the use of campaign funds to pay 

for certain security measures for 

candidates, officeholders, members of 

their family, and employees—as the 

term is defined at 26 CFR 31.3401 (c)– 

1—of the campaign or office (hereinafter 

also referred to as ‘‘staff’’). 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.’’ 21 Consistent with this 

rationale and prior advisory opinions 

that have authorized the use of 

campaign funds to pay for security 

measures, the Commission is amending 

the regulatory definition of personal use 

to clarify that campaign funds may be 

spent on certain security measures. 

As proposed in the NPRM, the 

Commission is adding a new paragraph 

at 11 CFR 113.1(g)(10) to address the use 

of campaign funds for security 

measures. Paragraph (g)(10) states the 

basic rule and personal use standard. 

Subparagraphs (g)(10)(i) through (iv) 

provide a non-exhaustive list of 

examples that would not be deemed 

personal use. 

A. New 11 CFR 113.1(g)(10)—Candidate 

and Federal Officeholder Security 

The Commission is adopting 

paragraph (g)(10) as proposed, with the 

exception that the final rule will also 

cover family members and staff of 

candidates and officeholders. 

Accordingly, the Commission’s new 

regulation provides that the use of 

campaign funds to pay for the 

reasonable costs of security measures for 

a federal candidate or officeholder or 

their family and staff is not personal 

use, so long as the security measures 

address ongoing dangers or threats that 

would not exist irrespective of the 

individual’s status or duties as a federal 

candidate or officeholder. The new 

regulation also requires that the 

payment for security measures be made 

at the usual and normal charge for such 

goods or services.22

Reasonable Costs 

In the NPRM, the Commission 

proposed to limit the use of campaign 

funds for security measures to cover 

only the ‘‘reasonable costs’’ of such 

security measures. 

The Commission received five 

comments on the proposed ‘‘reasonable 

cost’’ standard, four of which supported 

the proposal and one that opposed it. 

One of the commenters supporting the 

proposal urged the Commission to issue 

guidance or factors to consider in 

determining reasonableness of security 

expenses. This commenter suggested 

that the Commission take into account 

several factors in determining whether a 

security expense is reasonable, 

including: (1) the nature of the specific 

threat environment faced by the 

candidate or officeholder, (2) the cost of 

the security measure and how 

commonly it is used, (3) whether the 

security measure was recommended as 

part of a qualified security assessment, 

(4) whether the candidate or 

officeholder (or a member of their 

immediate family or staff) is a 

vulnerable person, and (5) whether the 

candidate’s or officeholder’s personally 

identifiable information is publicly 

available.23

Another commenter suggested that a 

‘‘tailoring requirement’’ should be 

added, i.e., candidates and officeholders 

should only be permitted to spend 

campaign funds on security measures 

that are ‘‘reasonably tailored to 

addressing ongoing dangers or 

threats.’’ 24 In the commenter’s view, the 

tailoring requirement would prevent 

abuse of campaign funds and ensure 

that they are used in both a reasonable 

and limited manner.25

The commenter opposing the 

reasonableness standard viewed it as 

unnecessary. This commenter asserted 

that the irrespective test in the personal 

use regulations should be used to 

determine whether a security expense is 

permissible rather than adopting a new 

reasonableness standard. 

The Commission agrees with the 

comments that support the use of the 

reasonable cost standard in the 

proposed rule. The Commission finds 

that the reasonable cost standard is a 

fair standard that provides appropriate 

notice to candidates, officeholders, and 

the public at large, and that the standard 

strikes the appropriate balance between 

granting candidates and officeholders 

the authority to use campaign funds for 

security needs while limiting such 

authority to prevent the misuse of 

campaign funds in the name of security. 

Therefore, the Commission adopts the 

rule as proposed in the NPRM, which 

authorizes the use of campaign funds for 

reasonable costs. 

Candidates and Officeholders 

As proposed in the NPRM, the rule 

would authorize the use of campaign 

funds to pay for certain security 

expenses for both candidates and 

federal officeholders so long as the 

security measures address ongoing 

dangers or threats that would not exist 

irrespective of the individual’s status or 

duties as a federal candidate or federal 

officeholder. 

The Commission sought comment on 

whether any distinction should be made 

between federal candidates and 

officeholders in how campaign funds 

may be used to pay for security 

measures. Most of the commenters 

agreed that the rule should authorize the 

use of campaign funds for security 

expenses for both candidates and 

officeholders, and none suggested that a 

distinction should be made between the 

two. 

The Commission agrees. As is well 

documented in the comments and in 

prior advisory opinions discussed 

above, both federal candidates and 

officeholders face safety and security 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
78204 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

26 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee 

and Democratic Congressional Campaign 

Committee, Comment at 3 (June 10, 2024), https:// 

sers.fec.gov/fosers/showpdf.htm?docid=425203. 

27Brennan Center for Justice, Comment at 12 

(June 10, 2024), https://sers.fec.gov/fosers/ 

showpdf.htm?docid=425200. 

28See Campaign Legal Center, Comment at 3 

(June 10, 2024), https://sers.fec.gov/fosers/ 

showpdf.htm?docid=425201; Citizens for 

Responsibility & Ethics in Washington, Comment at 

2 (June 5, 2024), https://sers.fec.gov/fosers/ 

showpdf.htm?docid=425202. 

29See Advisory Opinion 2021–03 (NRSC et al.) at 

2 (concluding that Members of Congress may use 

campaign funds to pay for bona fide, legitimate, 

professional personal security personnel to protect 

themselves and their immediate families due to 

threats arising from their status as officeholders); 

Advisory Opinion 2022–17 (Warren) at 5 

(concluding that candidate and officeholder may 

use campaign funds for cybersecurity measures to 

protect her home network, notwithstanding that 

family members and visitors may also connect their 

personal devices to candidate’s home network, so 

long as any benefit to others are incidental). 

30The Commission has previously stated that the 

fact that individuals other than the intended 

protectee will benefit from a security measure does 

not preclude the Commission from determining that 

the use of campaign funds for such security 

measure is not personal use. See Advisory Opinion 

2022–17 (Warren Democrats, Inc.) at 5 (concluding 

that authorized committee may use campaign funds 

to pay for costs of reasonable cybersecurity 

measures to protect officeholder’s home network, 

even though the benefits of such measures would 

necessarily extend to other members of the 

household and visitors to the home). 

threats due to running campaigns or 

holding federal office. Accordingly, the 

Commission adopts the proposed rule 

authorizing the use of campaign funds 

for certain security measures by both 

candidates and officeholders. 

Ongoing Dangers or Threats 

As proposed in the NPRM, the new 

regulation would only permit the use of 

campaign funds to pay for security 

measures that address ongoing dangers 

or threats that would not exist 

irrespective of the individual’s status or 

duties as a federal candidate or federal 

officeholder. 

Most of the commenters generally 

supported the proposed rule without 

commenting on the ongoing dangers or 

threats limitation. Several commenters, 

however, questioned whether the 

ongoing dangers or threats language was 

appropriate. One commenter 

recommended expanding the rule to 

include ‘‘reasonably likely future threats 

or dangers, or past threats or dangers 

that may reoccur.’’ 26 Another 

commenter expressed concern that the 

proposed rule was too restrictive and 

recommended that the rule take into 

account the threat environment at the 

national, state, or local level, rather than 

just the circumstances of the 

individual.27

Another commenter suggested that 

the proposed rule should focus on 

whether the expense for the security 

measure would exist irrespective of the 

individual’s status or duties as a 

candidate or officeholder rather than 

requiring any specific danger or threat. 

Two commenters argued that the rule 

should not require a showing of 

heightened threat environment for 

candidates and officeholders to spend 

campaign funds on security measures. 

One of the commenters specifically 

opposed requiring that a heightened 

threat environment be demonstrated 

prior to spending on security measures. 

The other commenter explained that 

many security measures are reasonable 

under any conditions and should be 

treated as ordinary and necessary 

expenses, while the nature of any threat 

environment should be a consideration 

in the reasonableness test in the 

proposed rule language. 

The Commission agrees with the 

comments that supported adopting the 

proposed rule and does not find the 

need to change the ‘‘ongoing dangers or 

threats’’ limitation. The Commission 

determines that the proposed rule as 

drafted appropriately encompasses the 

scope of dangers or threats faced by 

candidates and officeholders while 

establishing a limit to prevent the abuse 

and personal use of campaign funds. 

The Commission also agrees that a 

showing of a heightened threat 

environment should not be required 

prior to spending of campaign funds on 

security measures. Therefore, the 

Commission adopts the rule as proposed 

in the NPRM regarding ongoing dangers 

or threats. 

Family and Staff Security Measures 

In the NPRM, the Commission’s 

proposed rule did not explicitly provide 

for the use of campaign funds for 

security measures for family members or 

staff of federal candidates and 

officeholders. The Commission, 

however, sought comment on whether 

the proposed rule should be expanded 

to cover family members and staff. 

Most of the commenters generally 

supported adopting the proposed rule 

without commenting on whether family 

members and staff should be explicitly 

covered. Four comments specifically 

supported it, while none opposed it. 

Various commenters cited to media 

coverage of incidents of threats and 

violence faced by the family members 

and staff of candidates and 

officeholders, including the attack on 

the husband of former House Speaker 

Nancy Pelosi and a death threat 

received by a Congressional staff 

member.28 One of the comments 

supporting the inclusion of family 

members and staff argued that such 

expenses should be specifically 

included because the need for the 

security expenses for family members 

and staff would not exist irrespective of 

the status of the individual as a 

candidate or officeholder. One comment 

suggested that the final rule should 

specify that ‘‘family’’ may include 

family members who do not reside with 

the candidate or officeholder; another 

comment recommended covering, at a 

minimum, the immediate family 

members who reside with the 

officeholder or candidate. 

The Commission agrees that the 

proposed rule should be extended to 

permit the use of campaign funds for 

security measures for the family and 

staff of candidates and officeholders, in 

addition to the candidates and 

officeholders themselves. The 

Commission acknowledges the concerns 

raised by the commenters that the safety 

and security threats faced by candidates 

and officeholders may also extend to 

their families and staff, and in prior 

advisory opinions the Commission has 

authorized the use of campaign funds to 

address such security concerns.29 The 

Commission also agrees that, as with 

threats to candidates and officeholders 

themselves, in such cases, those threats 

to family members and staff would not 

exist irrespective of the individual’s 

status or duties as a federal candidate or 

federal officeholder. 

The Commission therefore amends 

the proposed rule to permit the use of 

campaign funds for reasonable security 

measures to address ongoing dangers or 

threats to candidates and officeholders 

as well as members of the candidate or 

officeholder’s family and staff. The 

Commission emphasizes that, as with 

candidates and officeholders, a security 

expense for a member of the candidate 

or officeholder’s family or staff must 

satisfy the irrespective test, meaning 

that expenditures on such security 

measures could only be made if the 

threats to the family member or staff did 

not exist irrespective of the individual’s 

status or duties as a candidate or 

officeholder. 

Regarding the scope of the term 

‘‘family member,’’ for purposes of this 

provision, the Commission will use the 

existing definition of ‘‘members of the 

candidate’s family’’ in 11 CFR 

113.1(g)(8). For this section, the term 

‘‘employee’’ is used as defined at 26 

CFR 31.3401(c)–1, as that is a wellrecognized definition used elsewhere in 

Commission regulations, such as in 11 

CFR part 114. This definition generally 

does not include campaign volunteers.30

However, candidates or officeholders 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 78205 

may request advisory opinions in 

circumstances where they seek to use 

campaign funds for such security 

measures. 

In sum, the Commission adopts the 

new rule as amended to permit the use 

of campaign funds to pay for security 

measures for federal candidates, 

officeholders, and their family and staff. 

Law Enforcement Requirement 

The proposed rule did not require law 

enforcement involvement or assessment 

in permitting the use of campaign funds 

to pay for security measures for federal 

candidates and officeholders. However, 

the Commission sought comment on 

whether such a law enforcement 

requirement would be appropriate. 

Most of the comments generally 

supported adopting the proposed rule 

without specifically commenting on 

whether law enforcement threat 

assessments should be required. 

Although various comments 

acknowledged that law enforcement 

assessments may play a useful role in 

demonstrating the existence of threats to 

candidates and officeholders, three 

comments opposed requiring them. One 

comment recommended that a police 

report be required if the campaign 

wished to spend above a certain limit 

established by the Commission. Another 

comment explained that although law 

enforcement assessment of a candidate 

or officeholder’s circumstances and any 

security recommendations will be 

relevant to the determination of whether 

security expenses are reasonable, as was 

the case in prior Commission advisory 

opinions, the Commission never 

suggested that a law enforcement threat 

assessment was required to permit 

spending of campaign funds on security 

expenses. 

After considering the arguments for 

and against requiring law enforcement 

threat assessments, the Commission has 

decided not to impose such a 

requirement in the final rule. As many 

commenters have noted, law 

enforcement threat assessments may 

play a useful role in determining 

whether a particular security measure is 

reasonable, and the Commission 

encourages candidates and officeholders 

to obtain such assessments when 

possible. However, imposing such a 

requirement in the regulation would be 

too restrictive, as it would deny the use 

of campaign funds for security measures 

in the absence of a law enforcement 

threat assessment even when an actual 

threat is genuine. Accordingly, the 

Commission adopts the rule as proposed 

in the NPRM, which does not require 

candidates or officeholders to obtain a 

law enforcement threat assessment to 

spend campaign funds on security 

measures. 

Other Issues Raised by Comments 

In the NPRM, the proposed rule did 

not address the ownership of tangible 

security devices, such as security 

cameras installed on a candidate’s 

property. One comment argued that the 

final rule should treat security devices 

purchased with campaign funds as the 

property of the candidate’s principal 

campaign committee, citing to Advisory 

Opinion 1994–20 (Charlie Rose). The 

comment asserted that tangible security 

items should remain the campaign’s 

property and be sold at fair market value 

or otherwise disposed of when the 

campaign winds down. The 

Commission disagrees with this 

comment because the ownership of 

tangible goods including those 

purchased for security measures remain 

subject to other provisions of the Act 

and Commission regulations, including 

prior advisory opinions that have 

treated non-cash assets as excess 

campaign funds. Accordingly, the 

Commission adopts the proposed rule 

without the amendment to address the 

ownership of tangible goods. 

Several commenters urged the 

Commission to ensure campaign funds 

for security measures are not used for 

personal enrichment, especially when 

security measures or services are 

provided by candidates’ family 

members. The Commission agrees with 

these comments that raised concerns 

about personal enrichment and 

potential abuse of campaign funds but 

finds that the proposed rule language, 

along with the other provisions of the 

Act and regulations, sufficiently 

addresses these concerns. The 

Commission therefore adopts the rule 

language as proposed. 

Finally, one comment urged the 

Commission to explicitly acknowledge 

that even if campaign funds may be 

used for security expenses, campaigns 

are not required to pay for security 

expenses at the homes of candidates, 

officeholders, or their families, and such 

expenses can be paid for by candidates, 

officeholders, or their family members. 

The Commission declines to adopt this 

recommendation because it views it as 

unnecessary. 

B. New 11 CFR 113.1(g)(10)(i)—NonStructural Security Devices 

In the NPRM, the Commission 

proposed to treat non-structural security 

devices as a permissible category of 

security measures that candidates and 

officeholders could pay for using 

campaign funds. As proposed, 11 CFR 

113.1(g)(10)(i) also provides several 

examples of permissible non-structural 

security devices, namely security 

hardware, locks, alarm systems, motion 

detectors, and security cameras. 

Commenters generally supported 

adopting this provision. One comment, 

however, suggested adding ‘‘security 

training’’ to the list of examples of 

permissible non-structural security 

devices. 

The Commission declines to do so. As 

acknowledged by the commenter, 

‘‘training’’ is not a security measure that 

would generally be categorized as a 

device. Accordingly, consistent with the 

comments that support adopting the 

proposed rule, the Commission is 

adopting new 11 CFR 113.1(g)(10)(i) as 

proposed in the NPRM. 

C. New 11 CFR 113.1(g)(10)(ii)— 

Structural Security Devices 

In the NPRM, the Commission 

proposed to treat structural security 

devices as permissible security 

measures that candidates and 

officeholders may pay for with 

campaign funds. The proposed 

subparagraph also listed several 

examples of permissible structural 

security devices, including wiring, 

lighting, gates, doors, and fencing. The 

proposed rule, however, required such 

devices to be ‘‘intended solely to 

provide security and not to improve the 

property or increase its value.’’ 

The commenters generally supported 

adopting this provision. One comment 

recommended that the rule not require 

structural security devices to be 

intended ‘‘solely’’ to provide security. 

Another comment recommended 

allowing structural security devices at 

locations such as campaign 

headquarters, event spaces, and 

residences of staff and family members 

who received threats arising from their 

connection with the candidate or 

officeholder and not limiting the 

permissible use of such security devices 

to the candidate or officeholder’s 

residence. This comment also 

recommended clarifying that incidental 

increases in value to a property from 

structural security devices do not 

necessarily make the use of campaign 

funds an impermissible personal use. 

However, the comment noted that 

additional costs for features or aesthetic 

options that do not serve a security 

purpose should not be permissible 

expenses to be paid using campaign 

funds. 

The Commission declines to adopt a 

rule that would allow the installation of 

structural security devices for reasons 

other than security. In the Commission’s 

view, the proposed rule appropriately 

restricts expenses to those that are 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
78206 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

solely intended to provide security. 

Expenses for structural security devices 

incurred for purposes other than 

security, such as to improve the 

property or increase property values, do 

not fall within the authority of this rule 

and may constitute the prohibited 

personal use of campaign funds. 

However, the Commission agrees that, 

as noted by another commenter, 

incidental increases in property value 

due to the installation of a device solely 

intended to provide security would be 

permissible. After considering all of the 

comments, the Commission is adopting 

new 11 CFR 113.1(g)(10)(ii) as proposed 

in the NPRM. 

D. New 11 CFR 113.1(g)(10)(iii)— 

Security Personnel and Services 

In the NPRM, the Commission 

proposed to treat professional security 

personnel and services as a category of 

security measures for which candidates 

and officeholders may use campaign 

funds. 

The Commission received several 

comments on this proposed rule. One 

comment urged the Commission to 

provide strict guidance as to who 

constitutes professional security 

personnel under the proposed rule so 

that private militias would not be hired 

in the guise of security measures. 

Another comment recommended that 

the professional security personnel and 

services be limited to only bona fide, 

legitimate, professional security 

personnel as articulated in Advisory 

Opinion 2021–03 (NRSC, et. al). Two 

comments argued that security 

personnel paid for with campaign funds 

must be licensed by a government entity 

and be up to date on all required 

certifications to prevent untrained 

personnel from providing candidate and 

officeholder security. Two other 

comments stated that spending on 

professional security personnel should 

not be limited to candidates or 

officeholders who are not otherwise 

protected by law enforcement or federal 

agents. And one comment would 

require security firms to have no 

connection with candidates or their staff 

to avoid unjust enrichment by them. 

The Commission agrees that 

additional guidance would be helpful in 

determining what are permissible 

security personnel and services under 

this rule. As identified by one of the 

commenters, limiting the rule to 

security personnel and services that are 

bona fide, legitimate, and professional 

would be consistent with the limitation 

the Commission previously approved in 

Advisory Opinion 2021–03 (NRSC, et. 

al). Adopting this proposed limitation 

would also address various concerns 

raised by commenters regarding the 

hiring of private militias, use of 

untrained personnel, and unjust 

enrichment under the pretext of security 

expenses. Therefore, the Commission 

adopts the proposed rule language as 

amended to require security personnel 

and services be bona fide, legitimate, 

and professional. 

E. New 11 CFR 113.1(g)(10)(iv)— 

Cybersecurity Software, Devices, and 

Services 

In the NPRM, the Commission 

proposed to treat cybersecurity software, 

devices, and services as a category of 

security expenses for which candidates 

and officeholders may use campaign 

funds. 

The comments received in response to 

the NPRM generally agreed with treating 

cybersecurity protection measures as a 

permissible type of security measure in 

the new rule. One comment specifically 

expressed support for identifying 

cybersecurity measures in the new rule. 

None of the comments received opposed 

including cybersecurity measures in the 

new rule. Accordingly, the Commission 

adopts new 11 CFR 113.1(g)(10)(iv) as 

proposed in the NPRM. 

Certification of No Effect Pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) (Regulatory Flexibility 

Act) 

The Commission certifies that the 

proposed rule, if adopted, would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The proposed rule would provide 

flexibility to principal campaign 

committees that choose to use campaign 

funds to pay for security measures for 

federal candidates or officeholders. Any 

proposed rule that could be construed 

as placing an obligation on a principal 

campaign committee would apply only 

to campaigns that choose to pay for 

security measures for federal candidates 

or officeholders. The proposed rule 

would not impose any new 

recordkeeping, reporting, or financial 

obligations on principal campaign 

committees that do not choose to pay for 

security measures for federal candidates 

or officeholders, and any such new 

obligations that may be imposed on 

principal campaign committees that do 

choose to pay for such security 

measures would be minimal. Thus, to 

the extent that any entities affected by 

this proposed rule might fall within the 

definition of ‘‘small businesses’’ or 

‘‘small organizations,’’ the economic 

impact of complying with this rule 

would not be significant. 

List of Subjects in 11 CFR Part 113 

Campaign funds. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, the Federal Election 

Commission amends 11 CFR part 113 as 

follows: 

PART 113—PERMITTED AND 

PROHIBITED USES OF CAMPAIGN 

FUNDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 113 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 52 U.S.C. 30102(h), 30111(a)(8), 

30114, and 30116. 

■ 2. Amend § 113.1 by adding paragraph 

(g)(10) to read as follows: 

§ 113.1 Definitions (52 U.S.C. 30114). 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(10) Candidate and federal 

officeholder security. The use of 

campaign funds to pay for the 

reasonable costs of security measures for 

a federal candidate, federal officeholder, 

member of their family, and 

employees—as defined in 26 CFR 

31.3401(c)–1)—of the candidate’s 

campaign or the federal officeholder’s 

office, is not personal use, so long as the 

security measures address ongoing 

dangers or threats that would not exist 

irrespective of the individual’s status or 

duties as a federal candidate or federal 

officeholder. Disbursements for security 

measures must be for the usual and 

normal charge for such goods or 

services. Usual and normal charge 

means, in the case of goods, the price of 

those goods in the market in which they 

are ordinarily purchased, and, in the 

case of services, the hourly or piecework 

charge for the services at a commercially 

reasonable rate prevailing at the time 

the services were rendered. Examples of 

such security measures include, but are 

not limited to: 

(i) Non-structural security devices, 

such as security hardware, locks, alarm 

systems, motion detectors, and security 

camera systems; 

(ii) Structural security devices, such 

as wiring, lighting, gates, doors, and 

fencing, so long as such devices are 

intended solely to provide security and 

not to improve the property or increase 

its value; 

(iii) Security personnel and services 

that are bona fide, legitimate, and 

professional; and 

(iv) Cybersecurity software, devices, 

and services. 

Dated: September 19, 2024. 

On behalf of the Commission, 

Sean J. Cooksey, 

Chairman, Federal Election Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2024–21918 Filed 9–24–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6715–01–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1