Using active campaign or surplus funds to pay for personal safety and security measures

The Public Disclosure Commission recognizes personal safety concerns of state lawmakers and the desire for increased security for individuals within that body, in light of recent events regarding the attacks on lawmakers in Minnesota.

Personal safety expenses may qualify for reimbursement from campaign or surplus funds. RCW 42.17A.430 permits use of surplus funds for public office-related expenses that are not reimbursed by the jurisdiction for which an elected official serves. This may include expenses an official incurs to protect their personal safety from threats related to the duties or status of public office, whether individually or collectively as a member of a public body. As described in PDC Interpretation 21-01, an official can consider a personal safety measure an office-related expense if: (1) the risk is identifiable and (2) the expense is proportional to that risk.

The PDC has received questions about the scope of expenses, and acknowledges that law enforcement may suggest certain security services to address safety risks, including executive protection at home residences, subscriptions for alarm/camera systems, residential security assessments, and protection of personal identifiable information. These services may be public office-related. WAC 390-05-518 states that “[a] ‘nonreimbursed public office related expense’ is an expenditure incurred by an elected or appointed official, or a member of the official's immediate family, solely because of being an official.” If a security expense meets that definition, addresses an identifiable risk, and is proportional to that risk, surplus funds may be used while the risk exists.

Elected officials may need to pro-rate expenses that include a personal benefit to the official. Such expenses may include permanent improvements to real property, like the installation of a perimeter fence, or the installation of additional lighting, locks, or alarm/camera systems at a residential home. For any permanent fixture, the official should seek proportional reimbursement solely for the duration of office, and to the extent that it relates to the risk.
In no event does an expense qualify as office-related beyond the term of office.

A candidate may also use active campaign funds for the protection of a candidate’s personal safety to the extent that the need is related to the campaign. While RCW 42.17A.445 prohibits the use of campaign funds for the personal benefit of a candidate, the law does not define a “campaign-related” expenditure. However, WAC 390-16-238 explains that the PDC will consider an expenditure of a candidate's campaign funds to be personal use if it fulfills or pays for any commitment, obligation or expense that would exist irrespective of the candidate's election campaign.
Where an expense is both personal and campaign-related, the PDC rules instruct that the campaign may only pay up to fair market value of the campaign’s share of the cost. Here, the PDC will apply the guidance provided for the use of surplus funds to reimburse for personal safety expenses.

When determining whether a personal safety concern is related to a public office or a campaign, the PDC will consider that the status of both positions may be cause for such risk, and therefore redressing it could qualify for the use of both active campaign and surplus funds. While an identifiable risk may continue beyond the election, the use of active campaign funds for personal safety expenses should stop at the end of the campaign, as active funds must be converted to surplus once all campaign obligations are met.

The following examples may be helpful, illustrative guides:

Clearly allowable: An elected official who receives threats at their personal residence that reference their official duties uses their surplus fund account to pay for temporary security monitoring beyond what their jurisdiction/agency is able to reimburse.

Needs more analysis: A seatmate of the above elected official is actively campaigning for election this year and is concerned about security at campaign events. The candidate should consider whether their personal risk is identifiable and whether any threat is related to their candidacy or their elected office in determining whether campaign funds or surplus funds may be used.

Likely not allowable: An elected official registered for the 2028 election wants to use active campaign funds to erect a fence at their home due to concerns over the general tenor of political discourse.