Permissible and Prohibited Uses of Campaign Funds: Frequently Asked Questions and Policy Overview

August 18, 2021 R46878

Permissible and Prohibited Uses of Campaign
August 18, 2021
Funds: Frequently Asked Questions and Policy
R. Sam Garrett
Overview
Specialist in American
National Government
Many frequently asked questions about permissible and prohibited uses of campaign funds are

relatively straightforward. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) generally permits
spending campaign funds for campaign expenses; certain officeholder expenses; charitable

contributions; and contributions or transfers, within specified limits, to other political
committees. Conversely, FECA prohibits spending campaign funds on items that would constitute personal use, such as
mortgage or tuition payments. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) relies on a standard known as the “irrespective test”
to determine permissibility of using campaign funds. If the expense would exist in the absence of the campaign, it generally
is impermissible. These issues are central to frequent constituent questions for Members of Congress and staff.
Beyond the established permissible- and prohibited-use provisions, several policy issues are recurring themes in Congress
and beyond. In particular, the FECA permissible- and prohibited-use provisions apply to spending by candidate campaign
committees. Those same provisions do not necessarily apply to other regulated entities. In practice, this means that a
prohibited expense for a House or Senate campaign is not necessarily prohibited for that same candidate’s leadership political
action committee (leadership PAC) or an allied party committee, for example. The status quo of disparate treatment for
candidate committees versus other types of political committees raises policy and practical questions about how campaign
finance law and regulation affect different kinds of organizations that influence U.S. campaigns. Additional regula tion could
apply more consistent spending standards to different kinds of political committees, and could provide an additional
enforcement tool to respond to reported increases in misappropriated funds or otherwise questionable spending. By contrast,
additional spending restrictions also could add to compliance burdens for political committees, including those that might
already have strong financial controls in place, those that depend on volunteer staffing, or both.
Some calls for increased regulation of permissible and prohibited uses of campaign funds cite reports of questionable
fundraising and spending that appears to be designed to benefit individuals rather than to further political campaigns. Citin g
such concerns, the FEC has recommended that Congress amend FECA to apply the personal-use prohibitions to all political
committees.
More than 40 bills that would affect permissible and prohibited uses of campaign funds have been introduced since 2012,
although statutory amendments have been relatively rare. Common themes in legislation include proposals to apply the
personal-use prohibition to all political committees, especially leadership PACs; to place a time limit on spending remaining
funds after candidates leave office or decline to run again; or to restrict payments to candidate family members. Congress
most recently amended the permissible- and prohibited-use provisions in 2007 via the Honest Leadership and Open
Government Act, when it barred certain payments for private air travel. The House has occasionally passed other legislation
that would affect permissible and prohibited uses of campaign funds. Provisions permitting using campaign funds for certain
child care, elder care, and health insurance premiums were included in H.R. 1, which passed the House during the 116th and
117th Congresses.

Congressional Research Service

link to page 22 link to page 35 Permissible and Prohibited Use of Campaign Funds

Appendixes
Appendix. .................................................................................................................... 18

Contacts
Author Information ....................................................................................................... 31

Congressional Research Service

link to page 22 Permissible and Prohibited Use of Campaign Funds

Introduction
How may political campaigns spend money and under what circumstances? The answers to those
questions—which are both simple and complicated—have significant implications for public
policy and for campaign management. On initial impression, what is sometimes cal ed the
“permissible use” question is straightforward. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) states
specifical y that campaigns may, for example, spend money to further the candidate’s election, or
may transfer money to political parties. Campaigns may not, for example, spend money on home
mortgage payments or personal travel.1
Matters become more complicated when considering spending among noncandidate political
committees. Here, some Members of Congress and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) have
proposed amendments to campaign finance law to further restrict spending by parties and
political action committees (PACs). In some cases, those proposals followed instances of al eged
misappropriation, embezzlement, or fraud involving FECA-regulated funds. Such episodes can
attract substantial public attention, but are not necessarily representative of the far more routine
and permissible spending through which most political committees execute their daily business.
Congress has specified provisions that apply to candidate campaigns as opposed to other kinds of
political committees. In particular, FECA prohibits spending campaign funds to personal y benefit
candidates or other persons beyond standard reimbursement for campaign expenses. Questions
about permissible use of campaign funds (in the general sense) do not necessarily involve the
narrower topic of personal use, although the two concepts are related. Congress has not
substantial y amended the permissible- and prohibited-use provisions recently, although
legislative proposals to do so are common.
Scope of the Report
This report
 briefly answers questions that frequently arise as House and Senate Members and
staff consider campaign finance legislation, oversight, or responses to constituent
inquiries;
 provides an overview of policy issues and options that might be relevant if
Congress chooses to conduct oversight or pursue legislation affecting permissible
and prohibited uses of FECA-regulated funds; and
 in the Appendix, summarizes congressional legislation concerning permissible
and prohibited uses of FECA-regulated funds.
The report is not intended to be a legal analysis and does address specific compliance or
enforcement scenarios.2 Congressional or other readers should not rely on the report for
compliance purposes; the Federal Election Commission provides guidance to political committees
on civil compliance and enforcement matters.

1 FECA is codified at 52 U.S.C. §§30101-30146.
2 For additional discussion, see CRS Report R45320, Campaign Finance Law: An Analysis of Key Issues, Recent
Developm ents, and Constitutional Considerations for Legislation , by L. Paige Whitaker. T he report also does not
specifically discuss unique compliance obligations for publicly financed presidential campaigns. In general, the other
candidate-committee obligations discussed in this report also apply to publicly financed presidential campaigns, which
are increasingly rare.
Congressional Research Service
1

link to page 22 Permissible and Prohibited Use of Campaign Funds

Policy Background
Selected Congressional Activity
Members of the House and Senate regularly introduce legislation to amend FECA’s provisions
regarding permissible and prohibited uses of campaign funds, although statutory changes have
been relatively rare.3 Congress most recently amended relevant FECA provisions in 2007, when it
restricted campaign payments for travel aboard private aircraft. Provisions in the 2002 Bipartisan
Campaign Reform Act (BCRA, also known as “McCain-Feingold” for the act’s principal Senate
sponsors) also clarified personal and prohibited spending under FECA.4 The Appendix at the end
of this report summarizes more than 40 bil s introduced since 2012 that would affect permissible
and prohibited uses of campaign funds.
Selected Federal Election Commission Activity
The FEC regularly addresses permissible-use questions through advisory opinions (AOs),
enforcement actions, and rulemakings. Some FEC AOs have permitted using campaign funds for
instances that might otherwise be considered prohibited personal use. Recent examples include
(1) using campaign funds for certain physical and home security expenses;5 (2) using campaign
funds for securing certain campaign and official electronic devices;6 and (3) using campaign
funds for certain child care expenses.7
The FEC also has considered amending agency regulations on issues addressed in the AOs. For
example, in May 2021, the FEC announced that it would receive comments on a rulemaking
petition that urged the commission to establish a uniform date for candidate-salary eligibility.
Currently, eligibility is based on primary dates that vary by state. The petition also urges
amending commission rules to permit paying candidate health insurance premiums.8 In a separate

3 For historical background and additional sources, see CRS Report R41542, The State of Campaign Finance Policy:
Recent Developm ents and Issues for Congress, by R. Sam Garrett .
4 BCRA, which amended FECA, is P.L. 107-155. On the personal use amendment, see §301. Citations in BCRA refer
to provisions previously codified in T itle 2 of the U.S. Code. T hese and other campaign finance provisions now appear
in T itle 52 of the U.S. Code. For additional information about a 2014 “ editorial reclassification,” which did not affect
the substance of the statutory provisions, see CRS Report R41542, The State of Cam paign Finance Policy: Recent
Developm ents and Issues for Congress, by R. Sam Garrett . For additional historical policy and legislative background,
see Federal Election Commission, “Disclaimers, Fraudulent Solicitation, Civil Penalties, and Personal Use of
Campaign Funds,” 67 Federal Register 76962, December 13, 2002.
5 In March 2021, the FEC also considered two drafts of an “interpretive rule” summarizing the commission’s AOs and
FECA interpretation on security uses of campaign funds. See FEC agenda documents 21 -14-A and 21-14-B, and
related public comments, https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/policy-other-guidance/. See also AO 2020-06. Other
AOs cited in 2020-06 provide related discussion. On physical security for Members of Congress, see also Letter from
Paul D. Irving, Sergeant at Arms, U.S. House of Representatives, to Steven T . Walther, Chairman, Federal Election
Commission, June 21, 2017. T he letter is attached to July 13, 2017, open -meeting Agenda Document No. 17-29-A,
https://www.fec.gov/updates/july-13-2017-open-meeting/; and July 13, 2017, open-meeting Agenda Document No. 17-
32-D, https://www.fec.gov/updates/july-13-2017-open-meeting/. See also, for example, Kenneth P. Doyle, “ Campaign
Cash for Lawmaker Bodyguards at Center of GOP’s Request,” Bloomberg Government, February 1, 2021.
6 See AO 2018-15. For additional discussion of campaign and election security issues, see CRS Report R46146,
Cam paign and Election Security Policy: Overview and Recent Developm ents for Congress, coordinated by R. Sam
Garrett .
7 AO 2018-06.
8 For additional background, see Federal Election Commission, “Rulemaking Petition: Candidate Salaries,” 86 Federal
Register 23300, May 3, 2021.
Congressional Research Service
2

Permissible and Prohibited Use of Campaign Funds

initiative, in April 2018, the FEC announced that it would begin reviewing the activities of former
or inactive candidates’ committees for potential prohibited personal use of campaign funds.9 The
FEC has cal ed such campaigns “dormant committees”; some others use the term “zombie
committees.” Although some groups have urged the agency to initiate a rulemaking, others have
suggested that the FEC should instead pursue enforcement in specific cases.10
For several years, the FEC also has recommended that Congress amend FECA provisions
concerning permissible and prohibited uses of campaign funds. Most relevant to the issues
discussed in this report, the FEC has recommended that Congress extend FECA’s prohibition on
personal use of campaign funds to other political committees. As discussed later in this report,
currently, the personal-use ban applies only to candidate campaigns, as opposed to parties or
PACs.11
The FEC also has recommended statutory amendments on the potential y related issues of
“fraudulent PAC practices” and the “fraudulent misrepresentation of campaign authority.”12 In
some cases, as noted later in this report, the lack of personal-use prohibitions for noncandidate
campaigns could present opportunities for malicious fundraising or spending designed to benefit a
political committee’s employees rather than to further federal elections.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a “campaign” for the purposes of permissible and
prohibited spending?
The FECA permissible- and prohibited-use provisions refer to contributions “accepted by a
candidate.”13 Practical y, this means funds accepted and spent by a candidate’s principal
campaign committee (e.g., Jones for Congress; Thompson for Senate), which FECA cal s an
“authorized” political committee.14 Other kinds of political committees (party committees, PACs,
super PACs, or leadership PACs) are not authorized committees.15 Consequently, the FECA
permissible- and prohibited-use provisions do not apply to these noncandidate committees.16

9 Federal Election Commission, “Commission Will Review Dormant Committees’ Use of Campaign Funds,” FEC
Record newsletter, April 26, 2018, https://www.fec.gov/updates/commission-will-review-dormant -committees-use-
campaign-funds/.
10 See, for example, Kenneth P. Doyle, “ Kill the Zombies? FEC Mulls What to Do About Undead Campaigns,”
Bloom berg Governm ent, May 25, 2018; and Christopher O’Donnell et al., “ Zombie Campaigns,” Tam pa Bay Tim es
and WT SP online, January 31, 2018, https://projects.tampabay.com/projects/2018/investigations/zombie-campaigns/
spending-millions-after-office/.
11 Federal Election Commission, Legislative Recommendations of the Federal Election Commission 2021, May 6,
2021, https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/legrec2021.pdf, p. 9.
12 See, for example, Federal Election Commission, Legislative Recommendations of the Federal Election Commission
2021, May 6, 2021, https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/legrec2021.pdf, pp. 5-8.
13 52 U.S.C. §30114(a). T he provision also refers to “any other donation received by an individual as support for
activities of the individual as a holder of Federal office.”
14 52 U.S.C. §30101(6). See also 52 U.S.C. §30102(e).
15 See 52 U.S.C. §30104(i)(8)(B); and 52 U.S.C. §30114(c)(3).
16 On the “ political committee” definition (except with respect to presidential public financing), see 52 U.S.C.
§30101(4).
Congressional Research Service
3

Permissible and Prohibited Use of Campaign Funds

What are campaign funds?
“Campaign funds” appears frequently as a term in campaign finance policy, but it is not always
used consistently. This report general y uses the term to mean money that federal candidates’
political campaigns raise and spend to support their election efforts. Campaign funds general y
come from what FECA classifies as “contributions,” meaning donations made by permissible
sources (e.g., individuals) in limited amounts.17
What does “use” of campaign funds mean?
For practical purposes, “use” means spending. Campaign finance policy discussions commonly
refer to “permissible use” or “prohibited use” of campaign funds to mean certain spending of
those funds. The term “use” appears in the FECA provisions that are central to this report, which
also adopts the term “use.”18
What kinds of campaign spending does FECA permit?
FECA explicitly permits “authorized committees” (candidates’ principal campaign committees)
to make expenditures for19
 campaign expenses;
 certain officeholder expenses;
 contributions to certain charities and other entities eligible to receive tax-
deductible contributions;
 unlimited transfers to local, state, or federal party committees;
 contributions to state and local candidates subject to relevant state law; and
 “any other lawful purpose” that is not otherwise prohibited.20
In addition to clarifying specific scenarios, FEC regulations permit limited additional spending
for activities such as candidate and spousal travel for “bona fide official responsibilities” and
costs related to “winding down” a congressional office up to six months after departure.21
What kinds of campaign spending does FECA prohibit?
FECA explicitly prohibits authorized committees from making expenditures for anything “that
would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign” or duties as a federal
officeholder.22 Prohibited expenditures include, but are not necessarily limited to
 home mortgage, rent, or utility payments;

17 For additional discussion, see CRS Report R41542, The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments
and Issues for Congress, by R. Sam Garrett . On the “ contribution” definition, see, in particular, 52 U.S.C. §301010(8).
18 For example, the FECA provision on “permitted uses” notes that contributions “may be used by a candidate” for
specified purposes noted later in this report. See 52 U.S.C. §30114(a).
19 T his report adopts the “making expenditures” terminology generally foun d in campaign finance law and regulation.
Practically speaking, “making” an expenditure means spending money.
20 52 U.S.C. §30114(a).
21 See 11 C.F.R. §§113.1-113.3.
22 52 U.S.C. §30114(b).
Congressional Research Service
4

Permissible and Prohibited Use of Campaign Funds

 clothing;
 noncampaign automobile expenses;
 country club memberships;
 a vacation or “other noncampaign-related trip”;
 household food;
 tuition;
 tickets to sporting events or entertainment not connected to a federal campaign;
and
 dues and fees for health clubs or recreational facilities.23
FECA presumes that these prohibited expenses are primarily personal in nature and therefore not
normal y legitimate campaign expenses. FEC regulations implementing the FECA provisions
specify additional prohibitions and exceptions in limited circumstances.24 As explained below,
other provisions in FECA also prohibit expenditures for certain campaign travel aboard private
aircraft.
How does the FEC determine whether specific campaign spending
would constitute prohibited personal use of campaign funds?
Whether in advisory or enforcement scenarios, the FEC relies on the “irrespective test” to
determine whether individual campaign spending is prohibited. First established in FEC
regulations and later incorporated into statute in the 2002 BCRA amendments, the irrespective
test holds that campaign funds may not pay for expenses that would occur “irrespective” of the
campaign.25 As the FEC has explained, “if the expense would exist even in the absence of the
candidacy or even if the officeholder were not in office, then the personal use ban applies.
Conversely, any expense that results from campaign or officeholder activity fal s outside the
personal use ban.”26
Which entities do the FECA permissible- and prohibited-use
provisions cover?
The FECA permissible-use provisions refer to funds derived from contributions to candidates
“and any other donation received by an individual as support for activities of the individual as a
holder of Federal office.”27 The prohibited use provisions also reference such contributions.28

23 52 U.S.C. §30114(b).
24 See, for example, the commission’s rationale for permitting campaigns to cover funeral expenses for those who die in
the course of their campaign duties in Federal Election Commission, “Disclaimers, Fraudulent Solicitation, Civil
Penalties, and Personal Use of Campaign Funds,” 67 Federal Register 76971, December 13, 2002.
25 For brief historical discussion, see Federal Election Commission, “Disclaimers, Fraudulent Solicitation, Civil
Penalties, and Personal Use of Campaign Funds,” 67 Federal Register 76970, December 13, 2002.
26 Federal Election Commission, Federal Election Commission Campaign Guide: Congressional Candidates and
Com m ittees, Washington, DC, June 2014, p. 53, https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/candgui.pdf.
27 52 U.S.C. §30114(a).
28 T he contributions described in the permissible use provisions are those noted in the text and codified at 52 U.S.C.
§30114(a). T he prohibited-use provisions refer to “ [a] contribution or donation described in subsection (a),” referring to
52 U.S.C. §30114(a).
Congressional Research Service
5

Permissible and Prohibited Use of Campaign Funds

Consequently, the FECA permissible and prohibited use provisions cover candidate campaigns,
but not other kinds of political committees (i.e., parties and PACs). As discussed elsewhere in this
report, Congress has considered legislation to expand the provisions to other political committees,
and the FEC has recommended enacting such legislation.29
Which agencies enforce the FECA provisions regarding specific
spending?
The Federal Election Commission enforces civil aspects of FECA and commission regulations.30
The Department of Justice (DOJ) enforces criminal provisions in FECA. Determining whether
prohibited personal use would rise to the latter standard would depend on individual
circumstances. Whether on personal use or other matters, the FEC may refer matters to DOJ for
criminal investigation, or the department may pursue enforcement on its own authority.31
How much may candidates spend on their campaigns?
Privately financed candidates—which includes almost al candidates today—may spend
unlimited amounts on their own campaigns. Congress limited personal spending on campaigns in
the original FECA, enacted in 1972.32 The Supreme Court invalidated that provision in the 1976
Buckley v. Valeo decision, holding that those and certain other spending limits violated the First
Amendment.33
Publicly financed presidential candidates and their immediate families may spend no more than
$50,000 supporting their campaigns.34 Relevant federal law defines “immediate family” in this
context to include a candidate’s spouse, child, parent, grandparent, siblings, and those people’s
spouses.35

29 See, for example, Federal Election Commission, Legislative Recommendations of the Federal Election Commission
2021, May 6, 2021, https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/legrec2021.pdf, p. 9. T he commission has
made similar recommendations regarding conversion of campaign funds for several years. See, for example, Federal
Election Commission, Legislative Recom m endations of the Federal Election Com m ission 2018 , December 13, 2018,
https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/legrec2018.pdf, p. 8; and Federal Election Commission,
Legislative Recom m endations of the Federal Election Com m ission 2012 , May 10, 2012, https://www.fec.gov/resources/
cms-content/documents/legrec2012.pdf, p. 7.
30 52 U.S.C. §30109(a).
31 52 U.S.C. §30109(a)(5)(C).
32 At that time, presidential candidates were limited to spending $50,000 from personal funds. House and Senate
candidates were limited to $25,000 and $35,000 respectively. See Section 608 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971 (enacted 1972), P.L. 92-25, 86 Stat. 9-10.
33 In addition, the Supreme Court, in Davis v. FEC, invalidated a BCRA provision known as the “Millionaire’s
Amendment.” T hat provision—while in effect between 2002 and 2008—provided higher contribution limits to
candidates whose opponents spent large amounts from their personal funds. For additional discussion of Buckley,
Davis, and other legal issues, see CRS Report R43719, Cam paign Finance: Constitutionality of Lim its on
Contributions and Expenditures, by L. Paige Whitaker.
34 26 U.S.C. §9004(d).
35 26 U.S.C. §9004(e).
Congressional Research Service
6

Permissible and Prohibited Use of Campaign Funds

May candidate committees spend unlimited amounts on their
campaigns?
Yes, with one exception. Al privately financed federal campaigns may spend unlimited amounts,
per the Buckley precedent noted above. Publicly financed presidential committees—the only form
of federal public financing currently available, and rarely used—are subject to separate spending
limits in the primary and general election campaigns.36 As discussed later, in al cases, individual
purchases must represent fair-market value.
May noncandidate committees spend unlimited amounts?
Yes, if the spending is done independently of a candidate committee. Spending not “coordinated”
with candidate committees is known as an “independent expenditure” (IE) in FECA.37 IEs are not
subject to limits.38 Spending “made in concert or cooperation with or at the request or suggestion
of” a candidate or candidate committee general y would be considered an “in-kind” contribution
to the campaign, and thus subject to contribution limits.39
How much may campaigns pay for services?
General y, political committees have wide leeway to determine their own spending, provided that
the money is not used for a prohibited expense. FEC regulations require campaigns to pay “fair
market value” for services in most cases to avoid the value being considered an impermissible
contribution to the campaign.40 As noted elsewhere in this report, separate provisions apply to
spending funds for travel aboard private aircraft.
May campaigns pay candidates or their families salaries?
Yes, if they choose to do so, and with restrictions. FEC regulations permit salary payments for
candidates and their family members. Candidate salaries may not exceed the lesser of (1) the
earned income the candidate received the year before receiving a candidate salary, or (2) the
salary the candidate would receive if elected to the federal office sought.41 Several other

36 As of this writing, major candidates most recently participated in the public financing program in 2012. For
additional discussion, see CRS Report R41604, Proposals to Elim inate Public Financing of Presidential Cam paigns,
by R. Sam Garrett .
37 On the “independent expenditure” definition, see 52 U.S.C. §30101(17).
38 If a noncandidate committee made an electioneering communication (EC) that was uncoordinated with a campaign,
the EC also would not be subject to spending limits. ECs are advertisements that refer to clearly identified federal
candidates but do not explicitly call for election or defeat (as do IEs). On the EC definition, see 52 U.S.C. §30104(f)(3).
See also 52 U.S.C. §30118(c)(1).
39 52 U.S.C. §30101(17)(B). Party committees also may spend in consultation with their general-election nominees,
subject to limits, through coordinated party expenditures. For additional background, see Federal Election Commission,
“Price Index Adjustments for Expenditure Limitations and Lobbyist Bundling Disclosure T hreshold,” 85 Federal
Register 9772, February 20, 2020. For additional discussion, see CRS Report RS22644, Coordinated Party
Expenditures in Federal Elections: An Overview, by R. Sam Garrett and L. Paige Whitaker.
40 FECA refers to “fair market value” with respect to flights aboard private aircraft. See 52 U.S.C. §30114(c)(1)(B).
FEC regulations refer to “fair market value” in other contexts (e.g., rent and salary payments). See, for example, 11
C.F.R. §113.1. FECA provides exemptions for certain volunteer activities and in -home food and beverage. See, for
example, 52 U.S.C. §30101(8)(B)(ii).
41 11 C.F.R. §113.1(g)(1)(I).
Congressional Research Service
7

Permissible and Prohibited Use of Campaign Funds

provisions also apply to candidate salaries. Among others, incumbent federal officeholders are
ineligible for candidate salaries. In addition, candidate salaries must be prorated for the period
during which the candidate seeks office,42 and must be reduced by the amount of any other salary
or wages the candidate receives. Final y, candidates may receive salaries during the period
between the primary filing date and the relevant primary or general election date (or when the
candidate withdraws from the race prior to either election date, if applicable).43
Family members receiving salaries must provide “bona fide services to the campaign,” for which
compensation may not exceed “fair market value” for the services provided.44 Candidate
committees also may employ political consulting firms or other vendors owned by candidate
family members or firms that employ candidate family members.
May campaigns spend money on private air travel?
House campaigns general y may not pay for private air travel.45 Other political committees may
do so in some cases. FEC rules and a related “explanation and justification” document outline
specific scenarios.46
Before 2007, political campaigns could reimburse providers for private air travel at the first-class
rate as long as commercial first-class service was available on the route flown, even if the actual
cost of private air travel was substantial y higher. This scenario permitted de facto corporate
subsidies of private air travel that many observers believed violated the spirit of FECA’s
prohibition on corporate campaign contributions. Partial y in response, Congress enacted the
Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (HLOGA). In addition to revising federal
lobbying law, HLOGA amended FECA to prohibit payments for certain flights aboard private
aircraft.47 HLOGA prohibits House campaigns and leadership PACs from paying for travel aboard
private (i.e., noncommercial or charter) aircraft.48 Other federal candidates (i.e., Senate or
presidential candidates) may provide reimbursement for travel aboard private aircraft if they or a
political committee pays the “fair market value” of that person’s travel aboard the aircraft, based
on typical charter prices for the type of aircraft and schedule on which the flight occurred.49
Must presidential campaigns pay for campaign travel aboard Air
Force One or other government aircraft?
Yes. FEC rules implementing HLOGA (discussed above) specify that political committees must
provide reimbursements at the per-person “campaign traveler” rate about Air Force One and other

42 For example, an individual who is a candidate for only six months would be ineligible for an annual salary amount.
43 11 C.F.R. §113.1(g)(1)(I).
44 11 C.F.R. §113.1(g)(1)(H).
45 52 U.S.C. §30114(c)(2).
46 See Federal Election Commission, “Campaign T ravel,” 74 Federal Register 63951-63968, December 7, 2009.
47 For additional discussion, see CRS Report RL34324, Campaign Finance: Legislative Developments and Policy
Issues in the 110th Congress, by R. Sam Garrett .
48 T he FECA prohibition on corporate contributions would prohibit providing unreimbursed travel aboard commercial
or private aircraft (or other reimbursed goods or services in most cases). See 52 U.S.C. §30118(a). T herefore, travel
aboard private aircraft essentially is prohibited for House campaigns and leadership PACs, unless the candidate or an
immediate family member personally owns or leases the aircraft. See 52 U.S.C. §30114(c)(3).
49 On provisions affecting House-candidate travel, see 52 U.S.C. §30114(c)(2). For other political committees, see 52
U.S.C. §30114(c)(1).
Congressional Research Service
8

Permissible and Prohibited Use of Campaign Funds

“government conveyances.”50 Political campaigns do not have to provide reimbursement for the
entire operating cost of flights aboard government aircraft (e.g., security expenses beyond the
campaign’s control).51
May campaigns spend money after the campaign concludes?
Yes. The FECA permissible- and prohibited-use provisions noted above apply before, during, and
after the campaign. There is no time limit on how long campaigns may retain their funds.
Campaigns typical y reserve funds for potential future races; refund money to contributors; make
contributions (or transfers, as permitted) to other candidates or parties; or support charitable
organizations through remaining funds.52 Some campaigns also change their status to become
leadership PACs. Campaigns that intend to cease operation may apply to the FEC to “terminate”
their political committee status. Doing so typical y requires that the campaign conduct no further
federal election activity, have no involvement in enforcement matters or litigation, and have no
outstanding debt.53 As noted previously, in April 2018, the FEC announced that it would begin
reviewing the activities of what it cal ed “dormant committees” (which some cal “zombie”
committees) for potential prohibited personal use of campaign funds.54
Does FECA specify particular spending restrictions for departing
officeholders?
FECA general y does not distinguish between the authorized committees of new candidates,
established candidates, or retiring (or even dead) candidates or Members. Authorized committees
may disburse excess funds by issuing refunds to donors, making unlimited transfers to parties,
making limited transfers to other political committees, giving the money to charity, or spending
the money for any other lawful purpose that does not constitute prohibited personal use as
discussed elsewhere in this report.

50 See 11 C.F.R. §100.93(e) and 11 C.F.R. §106.3(e). On official presidential travel, see also CRS Report RS21835,
Presidential Travel: Policy and Costs, by L. Elaine Halchin.
51 T he FEC explanation and justification (E&J) statement accompanying its HLOGA air-travel rules provides
additional discussion of the distinction between expenses required for the campaign versus those required for
presidential travel. See Federal Election Commission, “ Campaign T ravel,” 74 Federal Register 63951-63968,
December 7, 2009.
52 See, for example, Kenneth P. Doyle and Nancy Ognanovich, “Newest Zombie Campaigns Hold $26 Million Ahead
of 2022 Elections,” Bloomberg Government, July 19, 2021. For FEC regulations on departing-officeholder
expenditures, see 11 C.F.R. §§113.1-113.3. Some such activity may have House or Senate rules implications that are
beyond the scope of this report.
53 Federal Election Commission, Federal Election Com mission Campaign Guide: Congressional Candidates and
Com m ittees, June 2014, p. 123, https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/candgui.pdf.
54 Federal Election Commission, “Commission Will Review Dormant Committees’ Use of Campaign Funds,” FEC
Record newsletter, April 26, 2018, https://www.fec.gov/updates/commission-will-review-dormant -committees-use-
campaign-funds/.
Congressional Research Service
9

Permissible and Prohibited Use of Campaign Funds

Can departing officeholders personally keep their campaign funds?
No. In the 1979 FECA amendments, Congress prohibited converting campaign funds to personal
use, but exempted Members of Congress serving as of January 8, 1980.55 In 1989, P.L. 101-194
repealed the exemption.56
Are the FECA permissible- and prohibited-use prohibitions the
same as those in House and Senate rules?
They are similar, but there are important distinctions, most of which are beyond the scope of this
report. FECA and FEC regulations apply to al individuals and entities regulated under the act
(e.g., al campaigns). House and Senate rules apply specifical y to Representatives (including
Delegates and the Resident Commissioner) and Senators.57 They do not apply to non-Members,
such as candidates who are chal enging sitting Representatives or Senators. Depending on
individual circumstances, compliance questions—which are not addressed here—may need to be
directed to the FEC; House and Senate authorities such as the Committee on House
Administration, Senate Rules and Administration Committee, House Ethics Committee, or Senate
Select Committee on Ethics; or a combination thereof.
In brief, FECA permits using campaign funds “for ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in
connection with duties of the individual as a holder of Federal office.”58 This does not necessarily
mean, however, that al such spending would be permitted under House or Senate rules. For
example, House Rule XXIV prohibits using campaign funds on official “mail or other
communications, compensation for services, office space, office furniture, office equipment, or
any associated information technology services (excluding handheld communication devices).”59
Similar to FECA, House Rule XXIII and Senate Rule XXXVIII prohibit converting campaign
funds to personal use.60 The House and Senate Ethics Committees, the Committee on House
Administration, or the Senate Rules and Administration Committee also may adopt other
restrictions or guidance not addressed in this report.61

55 January 8, 1980, was the enactment date. For the 1979 amendments as enacted, see P.L. 96-187. For the personal-use
language, see 93 Stat. 1366-1367.
56 T he language amended FECA provisions currently codified at 52 U.S.C. §30114. As enacted, see Section 504 of P.L.
101-194; 103 Stat.1755.
57 House and Senate rules can also apply to congressional employees. Details are beyond the scope of this report.
58 52 U.S.C. §30114(a)(2). See also 11 C.F.R. §113.1 and 11 C.F.R. §113.2.
59 Rules as adopted by the House of Representatives in t he 117th Congress are available on the House Rules Committee
website, https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/117-House-Rules-Clerk.pdf. T he rules provide
previous FECA codifications found in T itle 2 of the U.S. Code. T itle 52 codifications in this report reflect a 2014
editorial reclassification. For additional discussion, see CRS Report R41542, The State of Cam paign Finance Policy:
Recent Developm ents and Issues for Congress, by R. Sam Garrett . For additional discussion of official expenses, see,
for example, CRS Report R40962, Mem bers’ Representational Allowance: History and Usage, by Ida A. Brudnick;
and CRS Report R44399, Senators’ Official Personnel and Office Expense Account (SOPOEA): History and Usage , by
Ida A. Brudnick.
60 For additional discussion, see, for example, House Committee on Ethics, “Proper Use of Campaign Funds and
Resources,” https://ethics.house.gov/campaign/proper-use-campaign-funds-and-resources#campaign_no_personal_use;
and U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Ethics, Senate Ethics Manual, 2003 edition, 108th Cong., 1st sess.,
S.Pub. 108-1 (Washington: GPO, 2003), p. 154; https://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/f2eb14e3-1123-
48eb-9334-8c4717102a6e/2003-senate-ethics-manual.pdf.
61 See, for example, Committee on House Administration, Members’ Congressional Handbook, 117th Cong.,
https://cha.house.gov/sites/democrats.cha.house.gov/files/2021_117th_Members_Congresional_Handbook_07 -
Congressional Research Service
10

link to page 22 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 22 Permissible and Prohibited Use of Campaign Funds

Potential Congressional Policy Issues and Options
Most of the frequently asked questions discussed above are relatively straightforward. They
generate consistent congressional and constituent interest, but do not necessarily spur substantial
legislative activity. Even if the most common questions are settled, however, they also reveal
more complicated and, in some cases, controversial policy debates about related topics. Here,
legislative proposals are more common, although statutory changes have been relatively rare.
This section provides an overview of policy issues that have emerged as components of
legislation, oversight, or agency activity since approximately 2010, and which appear likely to be
sources of recurring policy interest. Legislation listed in the Appendix proposes policy options
concerning several of these issues. The final section of the report provides brief “Concluding
Observations” that Congress could examine as it considers how or whether to explore these or
other permissible- and prohibited-use issues in more detail.
Maintaining the Status Quo
No major legislative or regulatory changes to the permissible- and prohibited-use provisions have
occurred since before 2010 (specifical y, enactment of BCRA and HLOGA and related
rulemakings). Maintaining the status quo would continue this policy environment. Maintaining
the status quo could be an attractive option for those who believe that existing legislative or
regulatory provisions are sufficient, that case-by-case enforcement of existing prohibitions is
sufficient, or both. Some Members also might prefer to maintain the status quo because—given
that legislative changes to campaign finance policy are relatively rare—legislative vehicles that
do advance can attract potential y unrelated amendments.
Applying Personal-Use Provisions to Other Political Committees
As noted previously, the FECA personal-use prohibitions do not apply to noncandidate
committees. Also as noted previously, the FEC has recommended that Congress extend the
personal-use prohibitions to al political committees (i.e., candidate committees, parties, and
PACs). In particular, and as the Appendix shows, several legislative proposals would extend the
FECA personal-use prohibition to political committees known as “leadership PACs.” Members of
Congress use leadership PACs to contribute to fel ow lawmakers’ and candidates’ campaigns.62
Because candidates do not “authorize” leadership PACs, the FEC has deemed leadership PACs as
having separate contribution limits from candidate committees, thus creating an additional

02%5B12%5D.pdf. For additional discussion of official expenses generally, see, for example, CRS Report R40962,
Members’ Representational Allowance: History and Usage, by Ida A. Brudnick; and CRS Report R44399, Senators’
Official Personnel and Office Expense Account (SOPOEA): History and Usage , by Ida A. Brudnick.
62 Members across the House and Senate commonly form these committees, although they were traditionally
established only by members of congressional leadership. Historically, although leadership PACs were widely
recognized, FECA did not define the term. T he 2007 Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA) air -
travel provisions, discussed previously, amended FECA to add the definition. FEC regulations describe leadership
PACs as “a political committee that is directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained or controlled by a
candidate for Federal office or an individual holding Federal office but which is not an authorized com m ittee [a
candidate’s principal campaign committee; emphasis added] of the candidate or individual and which is not affiliated
with an authorized committee of the candidate or individual, except that leadership PAC does not include a political
party of a political committee.” See 11 C.F.R. §100.5(6).
Congressional Research Service
11

Permissible and Prohibited Use of Campaign Funds

fundraising mechanism to raise money for other candidates’ campaigns but not for candidates’
own campaigns.63
Some Members of Congress or interest-group representatives contend that leadership PACs are
sources of permissible but improper personal spending that would be prohibited if it occurred in a
candidate campaign. Those cal ing for tighter regulation of leadership PACs general y also argue
that the committees run counter to the spirit of FECA’s contribution limits because they provide
an additional avenue for candidate fundraising, and influence, that the act did not original y
contemplate. Proponents of the status quo typical y regard leadership PACs as a valuable form of
Member support for fel ow candidates and officeholders.64
Extending the permissible- and prohibited-use provisions to other political committees could have
the advantage of treating al political committees uniformly with respect to those provisions. A
potential disadvantage of such an approach is that it could apply a blanket solution without
consideration of individual committee conduct and circumstances. Congress also could limit or
prohibit political committees from altering their organizational form from one committee type to
another, such as by converting from candidate committees to leadership PACs after officeholders
retire.
Altering Spending Authority
In addition to considering which political committees the FECA permissible-use provisions
should apply to, Congress could choose to examine how spending decisions are made inside
political committees. Although candidates or other committee employees (e.g., the campaign
manager or political consultants) exercise primary practical responsibility for spending decisions,
FECA general y places responsibility for compliance with a political committee’s treasurer.65
Political committees may choose to hire a professional treasurer or to rely on a volunteer, and to
appoint an assistant treasurer or to decline to do so. As noted previously, FECA general y grants
political committees broad discretion to spend funds as long as the expense is lawful and at a fair
market value.
At least two options exist for altering spending authority: encouraging voluntary practices or
requiring new ones. First, through educational outreach or policy guidance, the FEC could
continue its previous practice of encouraging political committees to adopt “internal controls” to
reduce the risk of inappropriate spending.66 These include, for example, dual signatures on checks
and the appointment of assistant treasurers to serve as a backup for or check on committee
treasurers. Similarly, political committees themselves, or professional organizations, could make
enhanced internal controls recommended best practices.67 Second, Congress could amend FECA
to require that political committees implement particular accounting or disbursement practices, or

63 T he FEC granted permission for what are today recognized as leadership PACs in a 1978 AO responding to a request
from then-Rep. Henry Waxman. For additional background, see AO 1978 -12; and Federal Election Commission,
“Leadership PACs,” 68 Federal Register 67013, December 1, 2003.
64 For additional discussion, see, for example, Issue One and Campaign Legal Center, All Expenses Still Paid: A Look
at Leadership PACs’ Latest Outlandish Spending, May 22, 2019, p. 3, https://www.issueone.org/wp-content/uploads/
2019/05/All-Expenses-Still-Paid.pdf. For additional background, see also Kenneth P. Doyle, “ Leadership PACs Need
T ougher Rules to Stop Abuses, Watchdogs Say,” Bloomberg Government, July 25, 2018.
65 See 52 U.S.C. §30102(a) and 52 U.S.C. §30104.
66 For specific examples, see Federal Election Commission, “Statement of Policy; Safe Harbor for Misreporting Due to
Embezzlement,” 72 Federal Register 16695, April 5, 2007.
67 Professional organizations include, for example, the American Association of Political Consultants (AAPC) and the
California Political T reasurers Association (CPT A).
Congressional Research Service
12

link to page 22 Permissible and Prohibited Use of Campaign Funds

otherwise further regulate campaign spending. These or other approaches to restrict campaign
spending may be attractive to those who believe that existing provisions are too lax, present
opportunities for unauthorized or inappropriate spending, or both. Conversely, additional
restrictions on campaign spending could limit political committees’ discretion and place a burden
on what, in some cases, are smal and primarily volunteer-based organizations (e.g., some
chal enger House campaigns).
Congress also could choose to regulate particular types of transactions, such as by capping the
number or amount of payments to certain individuals (e.g., candidate relatives or political
consultants employed by multiple committees associated with the same candidate) or by requiring
additional disclosure about disbursements to certain vendors, candidate family members, etc.68 In
addition, restricting political committees’ ability to disburse funds could limit the potential for
prohibited personal use of campaign funds (or, for noncandidate committees, spending that is not
necessarily prohibited but might nonetheless be seen by some as inappropriate). Such provisions
arguably could be consistent with existing provisions in FECA, such as those that prohibit
fraudulent solicitation of campaign funds and of campaign authority.69 On the other hand,
Congress has traditional y chosen not to regulate most aspects of campaigns and related political
committees’ internal operations.
Somewhat separately, special considerations concerning spending authority can arise when
candidates die. In some cases, candidates choose to specify their wishes for disposal of campaign
funds after death.70 It is important to note, however, that the treasurer’s spending authority and
responsibility under FECA holds regardless of whether the candidate is living or dead, meaning
that it is possible a treasurer’s authority could at least theoretical y override candidate preferences
even if the candidate were living.
As the Appendix shows, then-Representative Walter Jones, Jr., introduced legislation proposing
to permit candidates to designate someone other than the treasurer to spend funds according to the
candidate’s wishes if the candidate died.71 The House passed a version of that legislation, H.R.
406, in 2012 (the 112th Congress). Such approaches could al eviate the potential for internal
disputes about committee spending after candidate deaths, provided that designees would be more
faithful to candidates’ wishes than would be treasurers. On the other hand, it is unclear how
common such disputes might be and whether statutory changes are needed.72

68 Currently, campaign committees must report certain spending in regularly filed FEC reports. T his includes, for
example, providing “itemized” identifying information about disbursements aggregating more than $200 per election
cycle. Political committees must report the name and address of the person receiving the payment and a description of
the purpose for the payment. See, for example, 52 U.S.C. §30104(b)(3)(A); and Federal Election Commission,
“Statement of Policy: ‘Purpose of Disbursement’ Entries for Filings With the Commission,” 72 Federal Register 5,
January 9, 2007. In FEC reports, filers are not required to identify relationships among t he committee and those
receiving payments, such as family connections or previous employment status.
69 See 52 U.S.C. §30124.
70 See, for example, Jeff Barker, “Cummings Left $1M in Campaign Funds,” The Baltimore Sun, January 1, 2020, p. 1.
71 Rep. Jones explained that his interest in the topic arose from his family’s experience after the death of his father,
Rep. Walter Jones, Sr. See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on House Administration, H.R. 186: To
Am end the Federal Election Cam paign Act of 1971 to Perm it Candidates for election for Federal Office to Designate
an Individual Who Will be Authorized to Disburse Funds of the Authorized Cam paign Com m ittees of the Candidate in
the Event of the Death of the Candidate, hearing, 113th Cong., 2nd sess., June 25, 2014, 89-702 (Washington: GPO,
2014).
72 Amending FECA to alter spending only in cases of candidate death could raise questions about why the same
provisions do not apply when candidates are living. Currently, FECA does not provide explicit candidate authority over
campaign spending in general. Candidates’ de facto influence over their campaigns, despite FECA’s general silence on
Congressional Research Service
13

link to page 22 Permissible and Prohibited Use of Campaign Funds

Placing a Time Limit on Spending Remaining Funds
As the Appendix shows, several legislative proposals would place time limits on spending
remaining campaign funds, particularly after a candidate leaves office, becomes a registered
lobbyist, or both. FECA does not currently specify such limits. Arguments in favor of placing
time limits on disbursing remaining campaign funds general y are similar to those for restricting
leadership PAC spending. For example, time limits could be attractive to those who believe that
existing prohibited-use restrictions are insufficient, or that indefinite spending lacks long-term
internal or external oversight. Conversely, as with some of the other options discussed in this
section, Congress general y has chosen not to substantial y regulate internal political committee
operations. Similarly, Members of Congress might object to changes to the status quo, which
provides time to consider future campaigns, charitable contributions, or support for other
candidates.
Potentially Related Issues Concerning Certain Fundraising and
Spending
Some misuse of campaign funds results from simple errors, is isolated, and can be easily
corrected. Although such misuse is nonetheless prohibited and might wel result in an
enforcement action, it might not necessarily be viewed as a major policy concern. A related but
distinct issue, although not the focus of this report, is al egedly deceptive or criminal fundraising
and misappropriation of campaign funds. This section provides additional detail on selected
points.
It is unclear how common deliberate misuse of political committee funds might be—due, at least
in part, to the fact that the FECA prohibits the FEC from disclosing information about
enforcement matters until cases are closed, and because detecting such activity typical y requires
inside knowledge.73 Disagreements among policy and legal experts, and even government
agencies, over whether impermissible conduct has occurred and, if so, under which federal
statutes, can further complicate debates over enforcement actions in specific cases. In addition,
questions of motive and coordination between campaign actors and outside parties can be
difficult to ascertain.74 In general, however, agency activity and media reports suggest recurring
episodes of controversial, and in some cases prohibited, campaign spending, as noted briefly
below.
 In 2007, the FEC announced a “safe harbor” policy in enforcement matters for political
committees that file inaccurate reports due to misappropriated funds.75 At that time, the
agency stated that the policy resulted from “a dramatic increase in the number of cases

the issue, likely is sufficient in practice when the candidate is alive and able to actively participate in the campaign .
Congress could amend FECA to create a clearer candidate role over campaign funds regardless of whether the
candidate is living or dead. Congress also could provide explicit perm ission in FECA for candidates to hire and fire
campaign treasurers. Spending authority limitations also may be related to the issue of placing time limits on spending
remaining funds, discussed below.
73 52 U.S.C. §30109(a)(12).
74 See, for example, Julie Bykowicz and Joe Palazzolo, “Was the Payment to Stormy Daniels a Campaign
Contribution?,” The Wall Street Journal, February 14, 2018; and Patrik Jonsson, “Why the John Edwards Prosecution
Went Down in Flames,” The Christian Science Monitor, February 1, 2012.
75 See Federal Election Commission, “Statement of Policy; Safe Harbor for Misreporting Due to Embezzlement,” 72
Federal Register 16695, April 5, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
14

Permissible and Prohibited Use of Campaign Funds

where political committee staff misappropriates committee funds.”76 The agency stated
that granting safe harbor depended on political committees adopting specified “internal
controls [that] represent the minimum efforts a committee must take to qualify for this
safe harbor.”77 Those controls included specified banking and accounting practices, dual
signatures on committee checks exceeding $1,000, and petty-cash tracking. The
commission also approved a separate policy on self-reported violations, noting that it
general y would “offer penalties between 25% and 75% lower than the Commission
would otherwise have sought in identical matters” if violations were not self-reported.78
 As the FEC has explained in its legislative recommendations, “from its examining of
campaign finance disclosure reports and media accounts, the [FEC] is seeing a recurring
pattern of certain unauthorized political committees soliciting contributions with
fundraising materials that promise to use solicited funds to support candidates, sometimes
even implying that the materials originate from the named candidate.”79 In some cases,
the commission warned, such contributions “are not used as indicated in the solicitations,
but instead for significant and continuous fundraising,” with as much as 90% of
committee disbursements paid to vendors associated with committee employees. Many of
these scenarios appear to involve entities commonly known as “scam PACs” that
al egedly operate for their employees’ enrichment rather than for promoting or opposing
political candidates.80 At least some of these entities are organized as independent-
expenditure-only committees, commonly cal ed “super PACs,” that can raise unlimited
amounts for spending to elect or defeat candidates but may not contribute directly to
candidates. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) announced in April 2021 that it
was “seeing an increase in reports of potential y fraudulent PACs” and advised
contributors to conduct basic research about political committees before giving money.81
Campaign Finance Policy Versus Other Issue Areas
If Congress chooses to examine legislative responses to concerns over controversial uses of
campaign funds, a related decision could be which federal statute to amend. This report focuses
on campaign finance policy and FECA. Nonetheless, other areas of federal law and policy, such
as criminal or consumer protection provisions (which are beyond the scope of this report) also
might be relevant.

76 Federal Election Commission, “Statement of Policy; Safe Harbor for Misreporting Due to Embezzlement,” 72
Federal Register 16695, April 5, 2007.
77 Federal Election Commission, “Statement of Policy; Safe Harbor for Misreporting Due to Embezzlement,” 72
Federal Register 16695, April 5, 2007.
78 Federal Election Commission, “Policy Regarding Self-Reporting of Campaign Finance Violations (Sua Sponte
Submissions),” 72 Federal Register 16695, April 5, 2007. T he self-reporting policy could apply to situations other than
impermissible personal use.
79 Federal Election Commission, Legislative Recommendations of the Federal Election Commission 2021 , May 6,
2021, https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/legrec2021.pdf, p. 5.
80 See, for example, Lateshia Beachum, “Scam Artist Who Started Pro -Sanders Super PAC Sentenced to Prison on
Federal Fraud Charges,” Center for Public Integrity, December 21, 2018, https://publicintegrity.org/politics/scam-
artist-who-started-pro-sanders-super-pac-sentenced-to-prison-on-federal-fraud-charges/.
81 Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Scam PACs are on the Rise,” press release, April 15, 2021, https://www.fbi.gov/
news/stories/scam-pacs-are-on-the-rise-041521. See also, for example, U.S. Department of Justice, “ Arizona Men
Charged In Manhattan Federal Court With $23 Million Fraud And Money Laundering Scheme In Connection With
Purported Fundraising For Numerous Scam Political Action Committees,” press release, May 17, 2018,
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/arizona-men-charged-manhattan-federal-court-23-million-fraud-and-money-
laundering.
Congressional Research Service
15

Permissible and Prohibited Use of Campaign Funds

In the campaign finance context, DOJ has noted that embezzlement of campaign funds can
involve violations of the FECA prohibited personal use provisions codified at 52 U.S.C. §30114,
and also can implicate Title 18 criminal prohibitions unrelated to FECA. DOJ has advised federal
prosecutors that
If the conversion [of campaign funds] involves funds from a candidate’s committee, it is
prohibited by FECA [52 U.S.C. § 30114]. However, if the embezzlement is from a political
committee that is not a candidate’s committee, FECA prohibition in Section 30114 does
not apply. In any event, campaign embezzlements may be prosecuted under the mail or
wire fraud statutes, as a scheme to obtain money or property by deceit (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341,
1343).... For embezzlements from political committees that are not candidate committees,
and for embezzlements from candidate committees involving amounts under $25,000, the
mail and wire fraud statutes continue to be useful alternatives….Finally, a campaign
embezzlement can be addressed under the false statements statute, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 and
1519, and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (willfully causing an offense). This is because the embezzlement
is concealed from the committee’s treasurer, who is required to file detailed reports with
the FEC regarding the committee’s receipts and disbursements [52 U.S.C. § 30104(b)].
Thus, a person who embezzles contributions from a committee willfully causes the
committee’s treasurer to create false internal records and to submit false information to the
FEC regarding the actual use of the funds, in violation of both the reporting requirements
of FECA and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 and 1519.82
The FEC also has noted the applicability of other federal statutes in its legislative
recommendations. Regarding “scam PAC” solicitations, for example, the FEC has recommended
amending FECA:
While legal recourse against such committees might be pursuable under mail- and wire-
fraud statutes or the Lanham Act, candidates and contributors who believe they have been
victimized by these committees often seek the FEC’s assistance. Amending FECA to
address and prohibit fraudulent solicitation, including false claims of candidate
endorsement and the use of the federal political committee as an artifice to defraud
contributors solely to enrich committee organizers, would provide the Commission
jurisdiction to consider the complaints of aggrieved candidates and contributors.83
As Congress assesses which statute, if any, to amend, at least two factors may be relevant. First,
amending one statute does not preclude amending another. Thus, Congress could choose to
amend multiple statutes if it viewed these or other policy issues as multifaceted. Second, FECA is
devoted primarily to civil campaign finance matters, although “knowing and wil ful” violations
can trigger criminal enforcement.84 Providing the FEC with additional enforcement authority by
amending FECA could address some aspects of questionable fundraising or spending, but also
could continue to require enforcement under other statutes.85 Similarly, Congress could choose
not to amend FECA if it determined that other statutes were more appropriate options for
regulating activity that happens to occur in campaigns, but is primarily about other policy issues
(e.g., fraud).

82 Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses, ed. Richard C. Pilger, 8th ed. (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, 2017), pp. 195-196.
83 Federal Election Commission, Legislative Recommendations of the Federal Election Commission 2021 , May 6,
2021, https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/legrec2021.pdf, p. 5.
84 52 U.S.C. §30109(d).
85 For additional discussion, see, for example, Jarrett Renshaw and Joseph T anfani, “‘Scam PAC’ Fundraisers Reap
Millions in the Name of Heart -T ugging Causes,” Reuters, January 29, 2020, https://www.reuters.com/investigates/
special-report/usa-fundraisers-scampacs/.
Congressional Research Service
16

Permissible and Prohibited Use of Campaign Funds

Concluding Observations
Although some personal-use civil or criminal enforcement actions (topics that are general y
beyond the scope of this report) attract substantial public attention and controversy, most
campaign-spending questions are routine. Similarly, policy options for addressing permissible use
could range from simple to complex. For example, clarifying how campaigns can spend money
for security services does not necessarily require potential y complicated and controversial
amendments, as might be the case with extending the personal-use language to leadership PACs
or super PACs.
Views vary about whether there is a public policy “problem” concerning permissible and
prohibited spending. What policy action to take, if any, is a decision for Congress or regulatory
agencies. Factors that might be relevant for consideration if the House or Senate reexamine
personal and prohibited campaign spending could include the following points, among others:
 The question of how political committees may or may not spend FECA-regulated
funds is not necessarily the same as how they should do so. Similarly, public
policy is in some aspects distinct from campaign practice. Congress has
historical y elected to regulate campaign conduct largely indirectly through
campaign finance policy, which emphasizes limits on contribution amounts and
sources, and public disclosure requirements, rather than by mandating campaign-
management standards.
 The fact that political committees are nongovernmental organizations that engage
in constitutional y protected political activity could limit the extent to which
Congress chooses to pursue additional regulation versus encouraging voluntary
changes in political committees’ spending practices or financial controls.
 Questions of permissible and prohibited uses of campaign funds encompass a
wide variety of individual facts and circumstances, ranging from the mundane to
the extraordinary. Congressional needs and interests on the topic are likely to be
similarly diverse, ranging from addressing discrete constituent questions to
considering whether permissible-use issues are best treated as self-contained
campaign finance policy matters, as criminal ones, or as a combination of these
and other areas of law. In their capacities as candidates, Members and their
campaigns also have individual obligations under FECA, FEC regulations, and
chamber rules. In their capacity as Members, they also may be subject to
additional regulations established by the Committee on House Administration or
the Senate Rules and Administration Committee.
 Not al spending that appears to be questionable is problematic or prohibited.
Audits, such as those the FEC may conduct, or other civil or criminal
investigations, can determine whether political committees complied with federal
law and regulation in specific circumstances.
 Some policy proposals present controversial fundraising and spending practices
as two sides of the same coin, while others address them separately. Restricting
spending could provide an additional enforcement avenue in some cases, but
would not directly affect fundraising, or vice versa.

Congressional Research Service
17

Appendix.
Table A-1. Legislation Related to Permissible and Prohibited Uses of Funds Primarily Regulated by Campaign Finance Law
(See also table and source notes below)
Primary
Brief Summary of Relevant
Committee Referral
Latest Major Action
Congress
Bill
Sponsor
Short Title
Provisions
Beyond Referral
117th
H.R. 1
Sarbanes
For the People Act of 2021
Except for current federal
House Administration;
Passed House (220-210),
officeholders, add expenses for
Intel igence; Judiciary;
03/03/2021
child care, elder care, or health
Oversight and Reform;
insurance premiums to FECA
Science, Space, and
“permissible use” provisions for
Technology; Education
authorized (candidate)
and Labor; Ways and
committees, up to the
Means; Financial Services;
permissible amount of candidate
Ethics; Homeland
salary, regardless of whether
Security; Armed Services
candidate accepts salary; prorate
candidate salary if campaign pays
for such services (§§5301-5302;
bil primarily related to other
topics)
117th
H.R. 229
Ruiz
Campaign Spending Integrity
Prohibit authorized (candidate)
House Administration
—
Act
committees from paying
vendors owned or control ed by
the candidate or certain
relatives, by including such
expenditures in the definition of
prohibited personal use
CRS-18

Primary
Brief Summary of Relevant
Committee Referral
Latest Major Action
Congress
Bill
Sponsor
Short Title
Provisions
Beyond Referral
117th
H.R. 856
Tiffany
Obstructing Monetary
Prohibit authorized (candidate)
House Administration
—
Al ocations to Relatives
committees, or other
(OMAR) Act
committees established,

control ed, or maintained by a

candidate or federal officeholder

(except a party committee)
from compensating the

candidate’s spouse for services

provided to the campaign; and

establish reporting requirements
for payments to spouses or

other family members; establish

penalty and prohibit campaign
reimbursement for penalties
paid
117th
H.R. 1515 Porter
Help America Run Act
Add expenses for child care,
House Administration
—
elder care, or health insurance
premiums to FECA “permissible
use” provisions for authorized
(candidate) committees, up to
the permissible amount of
candidate salary, regardless of
whether candidate accepts
salary; prorate candidate salary
if campaign pays for such
services
117th
H.R. 2605 Takano
Let It Go Act
Establish six-year limit for
House Administration
—
disposing of campaign funds (or
one-year period for registered
lobbyists) for those who are no
longer federal candidates; and
establish prioritization criteria
for disposing of remaining funds
CRS-19

Primary
Brief Summary of Relevant
Committee Referral
Latest Major Action
Congress
Bill
Sponsor
Short Title
Provisions
Beyond Referral
117th
H.R. 2388 Castor
Honest Elections and
Unless candidate is seeking
Judiciary; House
—
Campaign, No Gain Act
reelection, require authorized
Administration
(candidate) committees and
leadership PACs to disburse
remaining funds within two
years of most recent election;
establish disbursement criteria;
restrict disbursements to
relatives unless for campaign
purposes; require former
candidates who are registered
lobbyists to certify compliance
on Lobbying Disclosure Act and
Foreign Agents Registration Act
reports
117th
S. 1
Merkley
For the People Act of 2021
Except for current federal
Rules and Administration
Markup held, failed to
officeholders, add expenses for
report favorably,
child care, elder care, or health
05/11/2021; Senate Rules
insurance premiums to FECA
and Administration
permissible use provisions for
Committee discharged
authorized (candidate)
(50-49), 08/11/2021; see
committees, up to the
also S. 2093
permissible amount of candidate
salary, regardless of whether
candidate accepts salary; prorate
candidate salary if campaign pays
for such services (§§5301-5302;
bil primarily related to other
topics)
CRS-20

Primary
Brief Summary of Relevant
Committee Referral
Latest Major Action
Congress
Bill
Sponsor
Short Title
Provisions
Beyond Referral
117th
S. 2093
Merkley
For the People Act of 2021
Except for current federal
— (see right)
Placed on Senate
officeholders, add expenses for
Legislative Calendar,
child care, elder care, or health
06/16/2021; Senate
insurance premiums to FECA
declined to invoke cloture
permissible use provisions for
on motion to proceed,
authorized (candidate)
06/22/2021; see also S. 1
committees, up to the
permissible amount of candidate
salary, regardless of whether
candidate accepts salary; prorate
candidate salary if campaign pays
for such services (§§5301-5302;
bil primarily related to other
topics)
116th
H.R. 1
Sarbanes
For the People Act of 2019
Except for current federal
House Administration;
Passed House (234-193),
officeholders, add expenses for
Intel igence; Judiciary;
03/09/2019
child care, elder care, or health
Oversight and Reform;
insurance premiums to FECA
Science, Space, and
“permissible use” provisions for
Technology; Ways and
authorized (candidate)
Means; Financial Services;
committees, up to the
Ethics; Homeland Security
permissible amount of candidate
salary, regardless of whether
candidate accepts salary; prorate
candidate salary if campaign pays
for such services (§§5301-5302;
bil primarily related to other
topics)
116th
H.R. 679
Rice (NY)
Political Accountability and
Extend FECA personal use
House Administration
—
Transparency Act
prohibition to other political
committees (rather than current
applicability to only candidate
committees); otherwise
primarily related to other topics
(§2)
CRS-21

Primary
Brief Summary of Relevant
Committee Referral
Latest Major Action
Congress
Bill
Sponsor
Short Title
Provisions
Beyond Referral
116th
H.R. 1308 Takano
Let It Go Act
Establish six-year limit for
House Administration
—
disposing of campaign funds (or
one-year period for registered
lobbyists) for those who are no
longer federal candidates; and
establish prioritization criteria
for disposing of remaining funds
116th
H.R. 1539 Peters (CA)
Leadership PAC Limitation Act
Extend FECA personal use
House Administration
—
prohibition to leadership PACs
116th
H.R. 1623 Porter
Help America Run Act
Add expenses for child care,
House Administration
Passed House by voice
elder care, or health insurance
vote, 10/29/2019
premiums to FECA “permissible
use” provisions for authorized
(candidate) committees, up to
the permissible amount of
candidate salary, regardless of
whether candidate accepts
salary; prorate candidate salary
if campaign pays for such
services
116th
H.R. 1363 Castor
Honest Elections and
Unless candidate is seeking
House Administration;
—
Campaign, No Gain Act
reelection, require authorized
Judiciary
(candidate) committees and
leadership PACs to disburse
remaining funds within two
years of most recent election;
establish disbursement criteria;
restrict disbursements to
relatives unless for campaign
purposes; require former
candidates who are registered
lobbyists to certify compliance
on Lobbying Disclosure Act
reports
CRS-22

Primary
Brief Summary of Relevant
Committee Referral
Latest Major Action
Congress
Bill
Sponsor
Short Title
Provisions
Beyond Referral
116th
H.R. 3686 Ruiz
Campaign Spending Integrity
Prohibit authorized (candidate)
House Administration
—
Act
committees from paying
vendors owned or control ed by
the candidate or certain
relatives, by including such
expenditures in the definition of
prohibited personal use
116th
H.R. 3834 Boyle
Clean Money Act of 2019
Primarily proposes public
House Administration;
—
financing of congressional
Energy and Commerce
campaigns; includes proposed
amendment to FECA personal-
use prohibitions specifying that
public funds may only be used
for campaign expenses (§103)
116th
H.R. 5755 Harder
No Pensions for Corrupt
Prohibit Members of Congress
House Administration;
—
Politicians Act of 2020
from receiving certain
Oversight and Reform
retirement benefits if the
Member is convicted of a
criminal violation related to
FECA prohibited personal-use
provisions or certain Title 18
conspiracy or fraud provisions
CRS-23

Primary
Brief Summary of Relevant
Committee Referral
Latest Major Action
Congress
Bill
Sponsor
Short Title
Provisions
Beyond Referral
116th
H.R. 6659 Steube
Obstructing Monetary
Prohibit authorized (candidate)
House Administration
—
Al ocations to Relatives
committees, or other
(OMAR) Act
committees established,

control ed, or maintained by a

candidate or federal officeholder

(except a party committee)
from compensating the

candidate’s spouse for services

provided to the campaign; and

establish reporting requirements
for payments to spouses or

other family members; establish

penalty and prohibit campaign
reimbursement for penalties
paid
116th
H.R. 9029 Jayapal
Anti-Corruption and Public
Among other provisions, extend Judiciary; Oversight and
—
Integrity Act
FECA personal use prohibition
Reform; House
to leadership PACs (§736);
Administration; Ways and
otherwise primarily related to
Means; Financial Services;
other topics
Intel igence; Rules; Foreign
Affairs; Armed Services;
and Budget
116th
S. 589
Lankford
Prevent Government
Among other provisions,
Appropriations
—
Shutdowns Act of 2019
prohibit spending campaign
funds on official (officeholder)
travel during lapses in federal
appropriations (§3); otherwise
primarily related to other topics
CRS-24

Primary
Brief Summary of Relevant
Committee Referral
Latest Major Action
Congress
Bill
Sponsor
Short Title
Provisions
Beyond Referral
116th
S. 949
Udal
For the People Act of 2019
Except for current federal
Finance
—
officeholders, add expenses for
child care, elder care, or health
insurance premiums to FECA
“permissible use” provisions for
authorized (candidate)
committees, up to the
permissible amount of candidate
salary, regardless of whether
candidate accepts salary; prorate
candidate salary if campaign pays
for such services (§§5301-5302;
bil primarily related to other
topics)
116th
S. 1877
Lankford
Prevent Government
Prohibit spending campaign
Homeland Security and
Reported with
Shutdowns Act of 2019
funds on official (officeholder)
Governmental Affairs
amendment in the nature
travel during lapses in federal
of a substitute (ANS),
appropriations (§3); otherwise
11/12/2019
primarily related to other topics
116th
S. 2232
Klobuchar
Campaign Finance
Among other provisions, extend Rules and Administration
—
Transparency Act
FECA personal use to other
political committees (rather
than current applicability to only
candidate committees) if the
disbursement is “significant”
($1,000 individual y or $5,000
aggregate) and made to a
“control ing person” (one who
has authority over committee
spending, or certain business
partners or relatives); specify
exceptions for process to
“rebut” personal use
presumption bil establishes (§9)
CRS-25

Primary
Brief Summary of Relevant
Committee Referral
Latest Major Action
Congress
Bill
Sponsor
Short Title
Provisions
Beyond Referral
116th
S. 2726
Klobuchar
Help America Run Act
Add expenses for child care,
Rules and Administration
—
elder care, or health insurance
premiums to FECA “permissible
use” provisions for authorized
(candidate) committees, up to
the permissible amount of
candidate salary, regardless of
whether candidate accepts
salary; prorate candidate salary
if campaign pays for such
services
116th
S. 3009
Lankford
Prevent Government
Prohibit spending campaign
—(see right)
Placed on Senate
Shutdowns Act of 2019
funds on official (officeholder)
Legislative Calendar,
travel during lapses in federal
12/11/2019
appropriations (§3); otherwise
primarily related to other topics
116th
S. 4461
Lankford
Prevent Government
Prohibit spending campaign
—(see right)
Placed on Senate
Shutdowns Act of 2020
funds on official (officeholder)
Legislative Calendar,
travel during lapses in federal
08/06/2020
appropriations (§3); otherwise
primarily related to other topics
116th
S. 5028
Bennet
Zeroing Out Money for Buying
Unless candidate is seeking
Rules and Administration
—
Influence after Elections
reelection, require authorized
(ZOMBIE) Act
(candidate) committees and
leadership PACs to disburse
remaining funds within two
years of most recent election
(or end of current term for
Senators); establish
disbursement criteria; restrict
disbursements to relatives
unless for campaign purposes;
require former candidates who
are registered lobbyists to
certify compliance on Lobbying
Disclosure Act reports
CRS-26

Primary
Brief Summary of Relevant
Committee Referral
Latest Major Action
Congress
Bill
Sponsor
Short Title
Provisions
Beyond Referral
116th
S. 5070
Warren
Anti-Corruption and Public
Among other provisions, extend Finance
—
Integrity Act
FECA personal use prohibition
to leadership PACs (§736)
115th
H.R. 593
Capuano
Leadership PAC Limitation Act
Extend FECA personal use
House Administration
—
prohibition to leadership PACs
115th
H.R. 838
Ruiz
Campaign Spending Integrity
Prohibit authorized (candidate)
House Administration
—
Act
committees from paying
vendors owned or control ed by
the candidate or certain
relatives, by including such
expenditures in the definition of
prohibited personal use
115th
H.R. 1723 Takano
Let It Go Act
Establish six-year limit for
House Administration
—
disposing of campaign funds (or
one-year period for registered
lobbyists) for those who are no
longer federal candidates; and
establish prioritization criteria
for disposing of remaining funds
115th
H.R. 2492 Davis (IL)
Protecting Taxpayers from
Require forfeiture of workers’
Education and Workforce;
—
Corruption Act
compensation benefits for
House Administration
Members of Congress convicted
of improperly converting

authorized (candidate) campaign
funds to personal use, among
other offenses
115th
H.R. 4497 Castor
—
Prohibit authorized (candidate)
House Administration
—
committees from paying
Congressional Accountability
Act claims, by including such
expenditures in the definition of
prohibited personal use;
otherwise primarily related to
other topics
CRS-27

Primary
Brief Summary of Relevant
Committee Referral
Latest Major Action
Congress
Bill
Sponsor
Short Title
Provisions
Beyond Referral
115th
H.R. 5409 Castor
Honest Elections and
Unless candidate is seeking
House Administration;
—
Campaign, No Gain Act
reelection, require authorized
Judiciary
(candidate) committees and
leadership PACs to disburse
remaining funds within two
years of most recent election;
establish disbursement criteria;
restrict disbursements to
relatives unless for campaign
purposes; require former
candidates who are registered
lobbyists to certify compliance
on Lobbying Disclosure Act
reports
115th
H.R. 7267 Rice (NY)
Political Accountability and
Among other provisions, extend House Administration
—
Transparency Act
FECA personal use to other
political committees (rather
than current applicability to only
candidate committees) (§2);
otherwise primarily related to
other topics
114th
H.R. 149
Jones (NC)
—
Permit candidate to designate
House Administration
—
up to two individuals other than
campaign treasurer to disburse
campaign funds according to
candidate wishes if the candidate
dies
114th
H.R. 150
Jones (NC)
No Political Funds for Personal
Extend FECA personal use
House Administration
—
Use Act
prohibition to al political
committee types
114th
H.R. 714
Capuano
Leadership PAC Limitation Act
Extend FECA personal use
House Administration
—
prohibition to leadership PACs
CRS-28

Primary
Brief Summary of Relevant
Committee Referral
Latest Major Action
Congress
Bill
Sponsor
Short Title
Provisions
Beyond Referral
114th
H.R. 1518 Takano
Let It Go Act
Establish six-year limit for
House Administration
—
disposing of campaign funds for
those who are no longer federal
candidates; and establish
prioritization criteria for
disposing of remaining funds
114th
H.R. 5884 Ruiz
Campaign Spending Integrity
Prohibit authorized (candidate)
House Administration
—
Act
committees from paying
vendors owned or control ed by
the candidate or certain
relatives, by including such
expenditures in the definition of
prohibited personal use
113th
H.R. 186
Jones (NC)
—
Permit candidate to designate
House Administration
Hearing held, 06/25/2014
up to two individuals other than
campaign treasurer to disburse
campaign funds according to
candidate wishes if the candidate
dies
113th
H.R. 3466 Jones (NC)
No Political Funds for Personal
Extend FECA personal use
House Administration
—
Use Act
prohibition to al political
committee types
113th
H.R. 5660 Takano
—
Establish six-year limit for
House Administration
—
disposing of campaign funds for
those who are no longer federal
candidates; and establish
prioritization criteria for
disposing of remaining funds
112th
H.R. 406
Jones (NC)
—
Permit candidate to designate
House Administration
Passed House (voice
up to two individuals other than
vote), 09/10/2012
campaign treasurer to disburse
campaign funds according to
candidate wishes if the candidate
dies
CRS-29

Source: CRS searches as described in the notes below and analysis of bil text.
Notes: Bil s listed in the table are based on CRS searches of Congress.gov for legislation introduced during 112th-117th Congresses containing “30114”” AND “federal
election” AND (time OR dispos*) OR (“personal” OR “prohibit*”); and on previous CRS campaign finance products. Different search methodologies could yield other
legislation not reflected here. Except as noted, the table does not include bil s that primarily propose to amend or establish public financing programs for political
candidates. Those bil s typical y address personal and prohibited uses of campaign funds within the context of the public financing programs they propose to amend or
establish, but do not address permissible or prohibited uses of privately financed campaign funds. The table also excludes proposed amendments to other legislation, and
bil s that do not appear to be substantial y related to campaign finance. In some cases, legislation in the table did not advance but relevant provisions were included in
other bil s also listed.
CRS-30

Permissible and Prohibited Use of Campaign Funds

Author Information

R. Sam Garrett

Specialist in American National Government

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R46878 · VERSION 1 · NEW
31

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Aug. 18, 2021

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

American Law

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON