[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24738-24742]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-06863]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 9, 2024 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 24738]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

11 CFR Part 113

[Notice 2024-09]


Use of Campaign Funds for Candidate and Officeholder Security

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Election Commission proposes to amend its 
regulations regarding the use of campaign funds to pay for security 
measures for federal candidates and officeholders. The proposed rule 
would codify several Commission advisory opinions that authorized the 
use of campaign funds to pay for certain security measures and address 
additional issues raised in those advisory opinions. The Commission 
seeks comment on the proposed rule and has made no final decision on 
the issues presented in this rulemaking.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 10, 2024. The 
Commission may hold a public hearing on this Notice. Commenters wishing 
to testify at a hearing must so indicate in their comments. If a 
hearing is to be held, the Commission will publish a notice in the 
Federal Register announcing the date and time of the hearing.

ADDRESSES: All comments must be in writing. Commenters are encouraged 
to submit comments electronically via the Commission's website at 
http://sers.fec.gov/fosers, reference REG 2024-01. Alternatively, 
comments may be submitted in paper form addressed to the Federal 
Election Commission, Attn.: Mr. Robert M. Knop, Assistant General 
Counsel for Policy, 1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20463.
    Each commenter must provide, at a minimum, his or her first name, 
last name, city, and state. All properly submitted comments, including 
attachments, will become part of the public record, and the Commission 
will make comments available for public viewing on the Commission's 
website and in the Commission's Public Records Office. Accordingly, 
commenters should not provide in their comments any information that 
they do not wish to make public, such as a home street address, 
personal email address, date of birth, phone number, social security 
number, or driver's license number, or any information that is 
restricted from disclosure, such as trade secrets or commercial or 
financial information that is privileged or confidential.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert M. Knop, Assistant General 
Counsel for Policy, Luis M. Lipchak, Attorney, Anthony T. Buckley, 
Attorney, or Joseph P. Wenzinger, Attorney, 1050 First Street NE, 
Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694-1650 or (800) 424-9530.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission proposes to amend its 
regulations 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 federal officeholder. The proposed rule would be 
consistent with Commission advisory opinions that authorized such 
spending and would address additional issues raised in those advisory 
opinions. The Commission invites public comments on this proposed rule.

I. Background

A. Act and Commission Regulations

    The Federal Election Campaign Act (the ``Act'') \1\ 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 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).'' \2\ Under 52 U.S.C. 30114(b), contributions accepted by a 
candidate may not be converted to ``personal use'' by any person.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 52 U.S.C. 30101-45.
    \2\ 52 U.S.C. 30114(a); see also 11 CFR 113.2(a)-(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.'' \3\ The Act and Commission regulations provide a non-
exhaustive list of expenses that, when paid using campaign funds, 
constitute per se conversion of those funds to personal use.\4\ 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.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 52 U.S.C. 30114(b)(2); see also 11 CFR 113.1(g) (defining 
``personal use'').
    \4\ See 52 U.S.C. 30114(b)(2); 11 CFR 113.1(g)(1)(i).
    \5\ See 11 CFR 113.1(g)(1)(ii) (providing non-exhaustive list of 
expenses to be determined for personal use on a case-by-case basis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Personal Use of Campaign Funds, 60 FR 7862, 7867 (Feb. 9, 
1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 several 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.\7\ 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

[[Page 24739]]

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.\8\ Therefore, the Commission 
concluded that the use of campaign funds to pay for the security 
upgrades was permissible under the Act and Commission regulations.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 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).
    \8\ Additionally, 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.
    \9\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also has 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 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.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Advisory Opinion 2017-07 (Sergeant at Arms) at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\11\ 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Advisory Opinion 2022-05 (Crapo) at 3 (approving use of 
campaign funds for the cost of window security film at the federal 
officeholder's residence); Advisory Opinion 2023-04 (Guy for 
Congress) at 4 (authorizing the use of campaign funds for window 
security film at a federal officeholder's residence).
    \12\ Advisory Opinion 2022-05 (Crapo) at 3.
    \13\ Advisory Opinion 2022-05 (Crapo) at 5; Advisory Opinion 
2023-04 (Guy for Congress) at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also has permitted the use of campaign funds to pay 
for security measures beyond home security upgrades.\14\ 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.\15\ 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.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 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).
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ See id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 duties as a federal 
officeholder.\17\ 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.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 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).
    \18\ See Advisory Opinion 2022-17 (Warren) at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proposed Rule

    Consistent with the advisory opinions described above authorizing 
the use of campaign funds to pay for security measures to protect 
federal candidates and federal officeholders, the Commission proposes 
to amend the regulatory definition of personal use to clarify that 
campaign funds may be spent on certain security measures. A general 
overview of the proposed rule is followed by specific details of each 
proposal. The Commission seeks comments on the proposed rule and 
emphasizes that it has not made any final decisions on whether or how 
to amend its regulations.

A. Overview

    The Commission's current regulations at 11 CFR 113.1(g)(1) through 
(9) address the personal use of campaign funds. The Commission proposes 
to add a new paragraph (g)(10) to address the use of campaign funds for 
security measures.
    Proposed 11 CFR 113.1(g)(10) would provide that the use of campaign 
funds to pay for the reasonable costs of security measures for a 
federal candidate or federal officeholder is not personal use. 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. The proposed regulation 
would require that disbursements for security measures be for the usual 
and normal charge for such goods and services. Categories of 
permissible security measures and examples of such measures would be 
listed in the following subparagraphs.
    Although the advisory opinions discussed above explicitly addressed 
only federal officeholders or individuals who were both federal 
candidates and federal officeholders, the proposed rule would apply to 
all candidates, including those who are not officeholders. This is 
consistent with the statutory and

[[Page 24740]]

regulatory framework on the personal use of campaign funds, which 
generally treats candidates and officeholders the same. Should the 
rule, if adopted, nonetheless distinguish between a federal 
officeholder and a candidate who is not a federal officeholder as it 
pertains to the permissible use of campaign funds to pay for security 
measures, for example on the grounds that candidates may not 
necessarily face the same heightened threat environment as sitting 
Members of Congress?
    Proposed 11 CFR 113.1(g)(10)(i) would identify non-structural 
security devices as a category of security measures for which 
reasonable expenses would not be personal use and provides a non-
exhaustive list of examples of non-structural security devices.
    Proposed 11 CFR 113.1(g)(10)(ii) would identify structural security 
devices as a category of security measures for which reasonable 
expenses would not be personal use and include a non-exhaustive list of 
examples of structural security devices. This regulation would only 
permit structural security measures that are intended solely to provide 
security and not to improve the property or increase its value.
    Proposed 11 CFR 113.1(g)(10)(iii) would identify professional 
security personnel and services as a category of security measures for 
which reasonable expenses would not be personal use.
    Last, proposed 11 CFR 113.1(g)(10)(iv) would identify cybersecurity 
software, devices, and services as a category of security measures for 
which reasonable expenses would not be personal use.

B. Proposed 11 CFR 113.1(g)(10)--Candidate and Federal Officeholder 
Security

    Consistent with the advisory opinions described above, the proposed 
rule would permit the use of 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 federal 
officeholder. The proposed regulation would require that disbursements 
for security measures be for the usual and normal charge for such goods 
or services. The usual and normal charge would be defined 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 were rendered. The proposed rule 
would provide a non-exhaustive list of permissible security measures 
based on the security measures that the Commission has previously 
approved via advisory opinions. Are ``reasonable costs'' an appropriate 
standard for determining the amount in campaign funds that may be used 
to pay for the security measures, or does a reasonableness test invite 
uncertainty? Should the regulation apply a reasonableness standard to 
the amount of expenses overall or to the types of security measures for 
which campaign funds are used? How would the Commission evaluate the 
reasonableness of overall costs or of costs for specific security 
measures? What kind of guidelines could the Commission use to evaluate 
the reasonability of a given expense or of aggregate expenses for 
security measures? Should the Commission consider different limitations 
on the security measures or ``ordinary and necessary costs of security 
measures''? \19\ Apart from the reasonability of the amount in campaign 
funds used to pay for security measures, the Commission is proposing to 
require that disbursements be for the usual and normal charge for such 
goods or services. The proposed definition of ``usual and normal 
charge'' is derived from the Commission's regulation at 11 CFR 
100.52(d), describing in-kind contributions. This definition is also 
consistent with the requirement in 11 CFR 113.1(g)(1)(H), which 
prohibits a candidate from paying a salary to a family member unless 
the salary is in exchange for bona fide services and the salary payment 
is for the fair market value of the services. This is intended to 
prevent candidates or officeholders from converting campaign funds to 
personal use by paying friends or family members above-market rates for 
security-related goods and services and to ensure that candidates and 
officeholders do not receive a potentially impermissible in-kind 
contribution from vendors.\20\ Should the Commission consider any other 
limitations to ensure that candidates and officeholders don't enrich 
friends and family members?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See, e.g., 11 CFR 100.52(d)(2), 11 CFR 100.111(e)(2).
    \20\ See Advisory Opinion 2022-17 (Warren) fn. 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirement that threats be ``ongoing'' is meant to be flexible 
and permissive, but to still set some concrete limits on uses, such as 
after threats subside or the person is no longer an officeholder or 
candidate. Is ``ongoing'' appropriate limiting language to qualify 
under the rule? Should the Commission use different limiting language 
on the nature of the threats in addition to or instead of ``ongoing'' 
(e.g., ``direct,'' ``specific'' or ``persistent'')? If a security 
measure is taken in response to a specific threat, as opposed to the 
``heightened threat environment'' discussed below, should the 
Commission require that such threat or threats be reported to law 
enforcement before a committee may use campaign funds to pay for 
security measures related to that threat?
    Several advisory opinions have approved the use of campaign funds 
for security measures due to ongoing--but not necessarily specific--
threats to the requestors due to their status as federal officeholders 
and considering the ``heightened threat environment'' in recent 
years.\21\ Should the rule explicitly require that candidates or 
officeholders face a ``heightened threat environment''? If so, should 
the rule explain how the Commission will evaluate whether there is a 
``heightened threat environment''? How would the Commission evaluate 
whether a ``heightened threat environment'' no longer exists?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Advisory Opinion 2021-03 (NRSC et al.); Advisory 
Opinion 2017-07 (Sergeant at Arms).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has followed Advisory Opinion 2017-07 (Sergeant at 
Arms) in concluding there is a ``heightened threat environment'' in 
more recent advisory opinions, but should the rule allow other bases 
for establishing threats or dangers, such as a law enforcement opinion 
or some other standard? Should a law enforcement or a professional 
security firm's recommendation be required before a candidate or 
officeholder may purchase security measures with campaign funds, or 
should such recommendation at least establish a presumption that the 
security measures do ``address'' an ongoing danger or threat? The 
Commission does not intend for the proposed rule to encompass privacy 
measures that do not provide a security function, e.g. privacy hedges 
or one-way mirror glass. Does the use of the term ``security measures'' 
in the proposed rule address that distinction or is additional 
clarification needed in the rule?
    In addition to candidates and officeholders, should the rule also 
permit campaign funds to be used to pay for security measures 
specifically for staff members of a candidate or officeholder, for 
example, to pay for security measures to protect a staff member's 
house? Further, should the rule also permit campaign funds to be used 
to pay for security measures for the candidate or officeholder's 
family,

[[Page 24741]]

including family members that do not reside with the candidate or 
officeholder? To ensure that security measures are primarily for the 
protection and benefit of a federal candidate or federal officeholder 
and no other persons, should the rule further stipulate that any 
benefits accruing to other household members or visitors from the 
security measures must be ``incidental'' to the protection of the 
candidate or officeholder? \22\ Should certain security measures be 
explicitly permitted for the family members of candidates or 
officeholders? \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See 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).
    \23\ See Advisory Opinion 2021-03 (NRSC et al.) at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, should the Commission require any recordkeeping 
requirements beyond those that apply to all disbursements by an 
authorized committee? \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See 11 CFR 102.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Proposed 11 CFR 113.1(g)(10)(i)--Non-Structural Security Devices

    Under existing regulations, the Commission has authorized the use 
of campaign funds for non-structural security devices in several prior 
advisory opinions under the rationale that expenses for such security 
measures would not exist irrespective of the duties of a federal 
officeholder or candidate.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Advisory Opinion 2011-17 (Giffords) at 3 (approving use 
of campaign funds for security expenses that would not exist 
irrespective of duties as a federal officeholder or candidate); 
Advisory Opinion 2011-05 (Terry) at 4 (same); and Advisory Opinion 
2009-08 (Gallegly) at 4 (same). See also 2017-07 (Sergeant at Arms) 
at 2 (concluding that Members of Congress may use campaign funds for 
security expenses as ordinary and necessary expenses); Advisory 
Opinion 2018-15 (Wyden) at 3 (concluding that campaign funds can be 
used to pay for cybersecurity expenses as they are ordinary and 
necessary expenses in connection with duties of a federal office 
holder).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed 11 CFR 113.1(g)(10)(i) would identify non-structural 
security devices as a category of security measures for which 
reasonable expenses would not be personal use and provides a non-
exhaustive list of examples of non-structural security devices that 
includes security hardware, locks, alarm systems, motion detectors, and 
security camera systems.
    Are there additional examples of ``non-structural security 
devices'' that should be explicitly listed in this category? For 
example, should the rule explicitly allow payments for ``training and 
equipment for personal defense?'' Should the use of these devices be 
further limited in any way, for example limiting the use of 
transportable security devices only to residences or offices?

D. Proposed 11 CFR 113.1(g)(10)(ii)--Structural Security Devices

    The Commission has previously concluded that the use of campaign 
funds for certain structural security devices, such as wiring, 
lighting, gates, doors, and fencing, would not be personal use so long 
as they are not intended to improve the property or increase its value. 
The Commission reasoned that such expenses were ordinary and necessary 
expenses related to the duties of a federal candidate or federal 
officeholder.\26\ Proposed 11 CFR 113.1(g)(10)(ii) would identify 
structural security devices as a category of security measures for 
which reasonable expenses may be paid for using campaign funds by 
federal officeholders and candidates. Proposed 11 CFR 113.1(g)(10)(ii) 
would also include a non-exhaustive list of examples of structural 
security devices. The proposed rule would only permit structural 
security measures that are intended solely to provide security and not 
to improve the property or increase its value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Advisory Opinion 2020-06 (Escobar) at 3 (authorizing 
the use of campaign funds for security lighting and wiring at 
member's residence); Advisory Opinion 2022-02 (Steube) at 5 
(permitting the use of campaign funds for the installation of a 
security gate at member's residence).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Should the use of structural security devices be limited to 
particular properties, such as a candidate or officeholder's residence, 
which are the only properties for which the Commission has specifically 
approved structural security devices? \27\ Is the limitation on the use 
of structural security devices--namely that the devices may not be 
intended to improve the property or increase its value--sufficient or 
should the Commission use a different limiting language? \28\ Should 
the proposed rule provide that an incidental improvement to the 
property or the increase in its value as a result of an installation of 
a structural security device nonetheless would be an acceptable use of 
campaign funds? \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Advisory Opinion 2020-06 (Escobar) at 3 (authorizing 
the use of campaign funds for security lighting and wiring at 
member's residence); Advisory Opinion 2022-02 (Steube) at 5 
(permitting the use of campaign funds for the installation of a 
security gate at member's residence); Advisory Opinion 2022-05 
(Crapo) at 5 (concluding that campaign funds can be used for various 
security upgrades at member's residences).
    \28\ See Advisory Opinion 2022-02 (Steube) at 4-5 (``[T]he 
purchase and installation of the gate is intended to provide an 
effective security system and is not intended for the purpose of 
improving your home.''); Advisory Opinion 2020-06 (Escobar) at 3 
(approving use of campaign funds for installation of security 
lighting and wiring ``meant solely for supporting the effectiveness 
of the security system and not as an `improvement' to your home.'').
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Proposed 11 CFR 113.1(g)(10)(iii)--Professional Security Personnel 
and Services

    The Commission has previously authorized the use of campaign funds 
for personal security expenses for Members of Congress and their 
families as ordinary and necessary expenses arising from their status 
as officeholders when they are not under the protection of federal 
agents.\30\ Proposed 11 CFR 113.1(g)(10)(iii) would establish 
professional security personnel and services as a category of security 
expenses for which campaign funds may be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Advisory Opinion 2021-03 (NRSC et al.) at 3 (concluding 
that Members of Congress may use campaign funds to pay for security 
personnel to protect themselves and their immediate families due to 
threats arising from their status as officeholders ``when federal 
agents are not protecting the Members or the Members' families.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed rule, campaign funds could be used to pay for 
personal security expenses of federal candidates and 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. Should this proposed rule be 
further limited such that payment for professional security personnel 
or similar services is permitted only when candidates or officeholders 
are not already receiving protection from law enforcement? \31\ Should 
the proposed rule explicitly permit the use of campaign funds for 
professional security personnel or similar services for the immediate 
family members of federal candidates or federal officeholders? \32\ 
Should the proposed rule require that professional security personnel 
be bona fide, legitimate, professional personal security or have 
additional qualifications or licenses?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Id.
    \32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Proposed 11 CFR 113.1(g)(10)(iv)--Cybersecurity Software, Devices, 
and Services

    Lastly, in two prior instances, the Commission has authorized the 
use of campaign funds for cybersecurity measures including software, 
devices, and services as ordinary and necessary expenses related to a 
federal officeholder's duties.\33\ Proposed 11

[[Page 24742]]

CFR 113.1(g)(10)(iv) would establish cybersecurity software, devices, 
and services as a category of security measures that may be paid for 
using campaign funds for federal officeholders and candidates. Should 
this proposed rule be further limited to only those that provide 
``incidental'' benefits to persons other than the candidate or 
officeholder, such as family members or campaign staff, who might also 
benefit from enhanced cybersecurity'' when using the software, devices, 
or services provided to the candidate or officeholder? \34\ And, if so, 
should the Commission define the scope of permissible ``incidental'' 
benefits?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Advisory Opinion 2022-17 (Warren) at 5 (concluding that 
federal officeholder could use campaign funds for cybersecurity 
improvements to her home network without violating the prohibition 
against personal use ``so long as the benefits accruing to household 
members and visitors required by the protection of the home network 
are incidental.''); Advisory Opinion 2018-15 (Wyden) at 4 
(concluding that the use of campaign funds to pay for certain 
cybersecurity measures for United States Senators would constitute 
ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in connection with their 
duties as federal officeholders.)
    \34\ See Advisory Opinion 2022-17 (Warren) at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Certification of No Effect Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) (Regulatory 
Flexibility Act)
    The Commission certifies that this proposed rule, if adopted, would 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. This 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. This 
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 these proposed rules 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 proposes to amend 11 CFR part 113 as follows:

PART 113--PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED USES OF CAMPAIGN ACCOUNTS

0
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.

0
2. In Sec.  113.1, add paragraph (g)(10) to read as follows: Sec.  
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 or federal officeholder 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 measures are intended solely to 
provide security and not to improve the property or increase its value;
    (iii) Professional security personnel and services;
    (iv) Cybersecurity software, devices, and services.

    Dated: March 27, 2024.

    On behalf of the Commission.
Sean J. Cooksey,
Chairman, Federal Election Commission.
[FR Doc. 2024-06863 Filed 4-8-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P