AO 2011-05: Use of campaign funds for security upgrades

Representative Lee Terry may use campaign funds to pay for enhanced security for his home. The payments would not be considered a prohibited personal use of campaign funds because the need for enhanced security stems from threats to Representative Terry stemming from his roles as a Member of Congress and as a candidate for federal office.

Background

Representative Terry is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Nebraska. Representative Terry was a federal officeholder and a candidate for re-election when, in October 2008, an individual became angry at receiving campaign literature from him and caused several disturbances at his Congressional office. After Representative Terry’s staff informed the individual that he should contact the Committee to complain, the individual stated that he knew where Representative Terry’s residence was and that he would go to the residence to complain. This led the local Sheriff’s office to increase its patrol presence in Representative Terry’s neighborhood.

Between December 2008 and April 2009, the individual escalated his behavior, first leaving voicemails with the Nebraska Governor’s office indicating his intention to appear at Representative Terry's house, and then leaving campaign literature on Representative Terry's front step. The individual was incarcerated from March to August, 2010. Since his release from custody, the individual has been observed driving past Representative Terry’s Congressional office and through Representative Terry's neighborhood.

Several security measures were recommended by the Capitol Police. Representative Terry asks if he could use campaign funds to offset the costs of installing those recommended security measures at his home.

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). For items not listed in the regulations as examples of personal use, the Commission determines on a case-by-case basis whether an expense would fall within the definition of “personal use.” 2 U.S.C. §439a(b)(2)(A)-(I); 11 CFR 113.1(g)(1)(i).

The Commission has previously concluded that payments for a home security system under circumstances similar to those presented here do not constitute personal use under the Act and Commission regulations. AO 2009-08. In the facts at issue here, Representative Terry’s campaign and his role as a Member of Congress appear to have motivated the individual to threaten him. The individual became angry at receiving campaign literature from Representative Terry, and left campaign literature addressed to him at the front step of his residence. The individual has stated to law enforcement that he is "striving against the abuse of power by public officials," and appears to have a history of stalking, harassment and threats. The individual may continue to pose a risk to Representative Terry and additional security measures, which are not intended to increase the value of Representative Terry's residence, have been recommended by authorities.

Based on these facts, the Commission concludes that the individual's actions would not have occurred had Representative Terry not been a Member of Congress or a candidate for re-election. The expenses for the proposed upgrades suggested by the U.S. Capitol Police would not exist irrespective of the Congressman’s campaign or duties as an officeholder, and therefore, the use of campaign funds to pay the costs of the additional security measures would not constitute personal use of campaign funds under 2 U.S.C. § 439a(b).

AO 2011-05: Date issued: April 1, 2011; Length: 5 pages