[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 25, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78201-78206]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21918]



 ========================================================================
 Rules and Regulations
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 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. 
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2024 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 78201]]



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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 52 U.S.C. 30101-45.
    \2\ Id. 30111(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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.'' \4\ 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.\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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 52 U.S.C. 30114(b)(2); see also 11 CFR 113.1(g) (defining 
``personal use'').
    \5\ See 52 U.S.C. 30114(b)(2); 11 CFR 113.1(g)(1)(i).
    \6\ 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.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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 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

[[Page 78202]]

upgrades was permissible under the Act and Commission regulations.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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).
    \9\ 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.
    \10\ 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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \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. 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id.
    \15\ 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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 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).
    \17\ See Advisory Opinion 2022-17 (Warren) at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Candidate Salary, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM''), 
89 FR 24738 (April 9, 2024), https://sers.fec.gov/fosers/showpdf.htm?docid=425136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ New 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 non-
exhaustive list of examples of non-structural 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 non-
exhaustive 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

[[Page 78203]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Three comments received from individuals were not 
responsive to the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Brennan Center for Justice, Comment at 11-12 (June 10, 
2024), https://sers.fec.gov/fosers/showpdf.htm?docid=425200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Campaign Legal Center, Comment at 3 (June 10, 2024), 
https://sers.fec.gov/fosers/showpdf.htm?docid=425201.
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 78204]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \27\ Brennan Center for Justice, Comment at 12 (June 10, 2024), 
https://sers.fec.gov/fosers/showpdf.htm?docid=425200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 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); 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 well-recognized 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

[[Page 78205]]

may request advisory opinions in circumstances where they seek to use 
campaign funds for such security measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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)--Non-Structural 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

[[Page 78206]]

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

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. Amend Sec.  113.1 by adding 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, 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