AO 2009-08 Use of campaign funds for home security upgrades
Representative Elton Gallegly may use campaign funds to pay for enhanced security for his home without the payments being considered a personal use of campaign funds because the ongoing threat to his safety, and that of his family, would not exist irrespective of his candidacy or his duties as an officeholder.
Background
Representative Gallegly is a member of the US House of Representatives from California, and his wife is his longtime campaign manager. In October and November 2008, Representative Gallegly ran for reelection. On October 23, 2008, a man approached Mrs. Gallegly at her home and claimed to be a gardener looking for work. Mrs. Gallegly told the man that she did not have any work for him, and asked him to leave her property.
On October 27, 2008, Mrs. Gallegly found a hand-addressed, unstamped letter in her mailbox. The envelope was addressed "To: Elton and republican [sic] party," and was signed by the man who had approached Mrs. Gallegly on her property four days earlier. The letter demanded that he be allowed to stay at the Gallegly residence "or anywhere filled with republicans [sic] for a guaranteed win of office." Mrs. Gallegly contacted the local police department, which instructed the individual not to contact the Galleglys or go to their residence.
On November 7, 2008, the individual entered the Galleglys' property again, and Mrs. Gallegly obtained a Restraining Order and an Order to Stop Harassment. However the individual violated the terms of the Restraining Order when he entered the Galleglys’ property a fourth time and hid in the bushes near the front door of their home. The individual was arrested and served thirty days in jail for violating the Restraining Order and was released on probation. After his release, the individual violated the terms of his probation and was arrested again. At the hearing, the judge set the individual's bail at $100,000, citing the risk he posed to the Congressman's and Mrs. Gallegly's safety.
Representative Gallegly consulted the U.S. Capitol Police about the incidents with the individual. The U.S. Capitol Police recommended various upgrades to Representative Gallegly's home security system which would cost between $6,000 and $7,500. Representative Gallegly wishes to pay for the upgrades using campaign funds. He confirmed that the security upgrades would not involve any structural improvements to, and are not intended to increase the value of, the Galleglys' property.
Analysis
The Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) and Commission regulations prohibit campaign funds from being converted to "personal use" by any person. 2 U.S.C. §439a(b)(1) and 11 CFR 113.2(e). Personal use occurs when a contribution or amount is used to fulfill any commitment, obligation or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate's election campaign or his duties as a federal officeholder. 2 U.S.C. §439a(b)(2).
Certain enumerated expenses are automatically considered personal use under the Act and Commission regulations, such as payments for mortgage, rent and household food items. See 2 U.S.C. §439a(b)(2) and 11 CFR 113.1(g)(1)(i). However, if the expense is not listed under the Act or Commission regulations, the Commission will make a case-by-case determination of whether any other use of campaign funds is personal use. If a candidate can reasonably show that the expense resulted from his campaign or offi ceholder activities, the Commission will not consider it to be personal use. Explanation and Justification for Final Rules on Personal Use of Campaign Funds, 60 Fed. Reg. 7862, 7867 (Feb. 9, 1995).
Payments for a home security system are not specifically listed as a personal use under the Act or Commission regulations. In this case, the Commission concluded that Representative Gallegly's payment for the home security system from his campaign funds would not be personal use. The Commission found that the content of the individual's letter and the timing of his actions strongly suggest that it was Representative Gallegly's role as a candidate and offi ceholder that resulted in the threats. Also, the security upgrades were recommended by the U.S. Capitol Police specifically because of the continuing threat posed by the individual. Because the on-going harassment occurred as a result of Representative Gallegly's re-election campaign and public position as a Member of Congress, the need for the proposed upgrades to the Congressman's security system would not exist irrespective of the Congressman’s campaign or duties as a federal officeholder. Therefore the use of campaign funds to pay for these security system upgrades would not constitute personal use of campaign contributions, and would not be prohibited by the Act or Commission regulations.
AO 2009-08: Date Issued: May 7, 2009; Length: 4 pages.