Only a Handful of States Let Candidates Pay for Security With Campaign Funds

Only a Handful of States Let Candidates Pay for Security With Campaign Funds

In other states, security might be excepted from bans on "personal use" of funds.

The Minnesota state flag flies at half-staff at the Capitol following the shooting deaths of House Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark. Minnesota is one of three states that allow candidates to use campaign funds for security for themselves and family members. (Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

Questions about personal security remain urgent for many legislators after the assassinations on June 14 of Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, and the shootings of Sen. John Hoffman and his wife. Security might be readily available in government buildings and at state events, but every elected official starts out as a candidate, and the campaign trail can be a different story.

From political television ads to office space, campaign funds fuel countless day-to-day aspects of running for office. In today's politically charged world, these necessities might also include candidate security. Security services cost money, and not all candidates will be positioned to foot the bill. State laws in California, Colorado, Louisiana, Minnesota and Wisconsin govern when and whether candidates can use their campaign budgets for security.

California, Louisiana and Minnesota allow candidates to use campaign funds for security for themselves and family members. Laws in California and Louisiana also cover security services for campaign staff. Extending beyond physical security, Louisiana permits candidates to spend campaign cash on cybersecurity services, and Minnesota's approved uses of funds include identity theft monitoring services.

Colorado and Wisconsin approach candidate security costs differently, making campaign-related exceptions to restrictions on the use of government funds. Colorado law prohibits the use of public money to support a candidate's campaign for office. However, the law makes an exception when funds are used to pay security officers to accompany candidates and their families. Wisconsin prohibits the use of government vehicles for campaign-related trips except when the state is providing candidate security.

While only these five states specifically mention security services in their campaign finance statutes, candidates in other states may have options for protection, too.

States commonly prohibit personal use of campaign funds. "Personal use" often includes any expense that would exist even if the candidate were not campaigning. However, campaign money can be used to cover expenses connected to the campaign or that would not have arisen if the candidate weren't running for office. For example, Arkansas allows candidates to use their campaign funds for expenses that are "reasonably and legitimately related to a campaign or officeholder activity," and Washington allows campaign funds to pay for expenses "incurred as a result of campaigning." In states like these, a candidate might be able to use campaign funds for security if the need is sufficiently related to the campaign or would not exist in the absence of the campaign.

Similarly, many state laws simply provide lists of the expenses candidates can cover with campaign funds. Security services might fall into campaign-related expenses in these cases. Candidates in states whose laws take either of these approaches can seek guidance from their counsel or their state's administrative and regulatory bodies that handle campaign finance.

Helen Brewer is a senior policy specialist in NCSL's Elections and Redistricting Program.