Threats against politicans are prevalent. The FEC wants to let campaigns pay for security.

The Federal Election Commission wants to allow federal candidates to use campaign funds for a wide range of security measures, a significant expansion of what campaign war chests can be used for amid a heated political environment.

The proposal from the campaign finance regulator comes amid a spike in threats to politicians; the U.S. Capitol Police said it investigated over 8,000 cases last year — a number the agency expects to grow in 2024.

The proposed FEC changes would allow federal candidates to use their campaign accounts to pay for things like security personnel, equipment like cameras or motion detectors at their homes and cybersecurity services — so long as these purchases “address ongoing dangers or threats” arising from their status as federal candidates or officials and they pay a fair market value.

“The bottom line is I don't want anybody to get killed trying to run for office, or trying to serve the country,” FEC Chair Sean Cooksey said in an interview with Score.

Wednesday’s meeting will be the first step in this process. The agency's six commissioners — three Democrats, three Republicans — are effectively voting today to open up this rule to public comment. After a sixty day comment period, the agency takes the comments into consideration and could make tweaks, before voting for the final rule. The rulemaking proposal is expected to draw bipartisan support, but this process means it won’t go into effect immediately. Cooksey said he realistically anticipated a final vote coming either at the end of the summer or early fall.

The proposed rules intentionally grant wide latitude to candidates, he said.

“We're not trying to micromanage candidates and members of Congress from customizing their security needs,” the Republican commissioner said. He added that there are “also some important controls on abuse and misuse by making sure that they're paying fair market prices, and it reasonably tailors to the security needs they have.”

Broadly, federal law prevents candidates from using campaign funds for “personal use.” But federal officeholders have been able to get permission to use campaign funds to pay for certain security protections under the agency’s advisory opinion process. But it has been scattershot — advisory opinions are issued on a case-by-case basis, and only after a campaign asks the FEC to weigh in on a specific situation. That means campaigns have had to ask permission for each individual use — the agency, for example, issued separate advisory opinions allowing for a security gate, security lighting and related wiring, and “window security film,” to name a few.

The proposed rules would make that piecemeal system unnecessary, giving candidates much wider latitude to spend on security measures. And the proposed rule is for all federal candidates, which in practice is a dramatic expansion. Most advisory opinions about security spending have been for current members of Congress.

This would also include presidential candidates as well. While “major” candidates get Secret Service protection — a determination made by the secretary of Homeland Security after consulting an “advisory committee” that includes the four major congressional leaders — the new rule would allow candidates to pay for security protection as soon as they want. It would also apply to candidates that aren’t deemed eligible for Secret Service protection. (Recall independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. unsuccessfully agitating for Secret Service protection last summer, which would have been historically early.)

The proposed rule could also help level the playing field between rich candidates and the middle class, Cooksey said.

It is “an issue of wealth disparity and equal access for people running for public office,” he said. “Wealthy candidates and wealthy members of Congress will always be able to pay for their own security. There has never been a limitation on that. It is more middle-class and working-class members of Congress and candidates who are put in the position of making a choice of risking their safety, or their families’ safeties, in order to try to run for federal office.”

He said the push to change the rules has been driven by personal experiences from himself and his fellow commissioners working for high profile politicians who have faced security threats. Cooksey previously worked for both Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas). And he named Commissioner Dara Lindenbaum’s experience working for Georgia Democrat Stacey Abrams as another motivating factor.

But it isn’t just that. “A lot of us also watch the news, and we continue to see what a major problem this is,” he added.