Source: https://www.ethics.state.tx.us/opinions/104.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 06:05:09+00:00

Document:
(B) are not reimbursable with public money.
Elec. Code § 251.001(4). A "campaign contribution" to an individual is one given with the intent that it be used in connection with a campaign for elective office. Id. § 251.001(3); see also id. § 251.001(7), (9) (definition of "campaign expenditure" and definition of "officeholder expenditure"). A campaign contribution may be used for officeholder purposes. See id. § 253.035(d).
(2) payments of federal income taxes due on interest and other income earned on political contributions.
Id. (emphasis added). Laundry expenses are not the type of expenses connected with maintaining a residence, such as rent and utility payments. Therefore, we must determine whether such expenses are in connection with the performance of duties or activities as an officeholder. A useful basis for making this determination is the standard for determining whether clothing expenses may be deducted as business expenses for federal tax purposes. Clothing expenses may be deducted as a business expense "only if: (1) the clothing is of a type specifically required as a condition of employment, (2) it is not adaptable to general usage as ordinary clothing, and (3) it is not so worn." Pevsner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 628 F.2d 467, 469 (5th Cir. 1980); Donnelly v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 262 F.2d 411, 412 (2nd Cir. 1959). See generally Sibla v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 611 F.2d 1260 (9th Cir. 1980) (a personal expense can take on the character of a business expense when confined by conditions of employment). We think the same standard would apply in determining whether clothing expenses, including laundry expenses, are permissible officeholder expenditures under title 15. Cf. Hynes v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 74 TC 1266, 1289-92 (1980) (television newsman not entitled to deductions for his wardrobe); Kosmal v. Commissioner, 39 TCM 651, 653 (1979) (district attorney who planned to enter more lucrative private practice and believed future employers would expect him to upgrade his dress could not deduct expensive business suits purchased in anticipation of the career change since the suits were suitable for general wear).
Even if there are rules of the House or Senate establishing a dress code for legislators, the clothes worn by members of the legislature are ordinary clothing that can be worn in places other than the Capitol. Cf. Drake v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 52 TC 842, 844 (1969) (finding that costs for cleaning army fatigue uniforms is deductible, but noting that personal grooming expenses are not business expenses even if there are standards that employers expect employees to adhere to); Russell v. Commissioner, 11 TCM 334 (1952) (railroad fireman's cost of work clothing and laundry thereof not deductible since it was not a uniform, but was work clothing customarily worn by men in similar employment and selected by the individual for his own convenience in performing his services). Thus a legislator may not use political contributions to pay for laundry and dry cleaning expenses incurred in Austin.
Legislators may not use political contributions to pay laundry and dry cleaning expenses incurred in Austin.

References: § 251
 § 251
 § 251
 § 253
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.