Looks like the threats are being used to clarify what security systems can be installed where using campaign funds.
>snip<
In each of the above noted advisory opinions, the FEC held that Members who have been threatened could use campaign funds for non•structural security upgrades to their residences. The advisory opinions have addressed six categories of permissible uses of contributions accepted by a Federal candidate. Of importance in this matter are the provisions that the ordinary and necessary expenses incurred are in connection with the duties of the individual as a holder of Federal office and that the use is lawful and not prohibited by 2 U.S.C. 439a(b).1 See 52 U.S.C. 30114(a)(2) and (6).
52 U.S.C. 30114(b)(2) lists those expenditures of campaign funds that would constitute conversion. Residential security systems are not among those items specifically prohibited. Further, the FEC has stated that if a candidate "can reasonably show that the expenses at issue resulted from campaign or officeholder activities, the Commission win not consider the use to be personal use/' AO 2011-08 at 3, citing 60 FR 7862, 7867 (Feb. 9, 1995).
It seems clear that the FEC has held that if a ember of Congress receives a threatening communication, based on the fact that they are a Member of Congress, campaign funds can be used for residential security systems. However, it is unclear whether other Members of the House may rely on these advisory opinions to procure residential security systems with campaign funds pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30108.
Therefore, as this is an urgent matter, I am respectfully requesting a Letter of Guidance from the Federal Election Commission within the next 7 business days as to whether a Member of Congress may use campaign funds to install residential security systems that do not constitute structural improvements. It is my position that Members of the U.S. House of Representatives require a residential security system due to the threat environment.
From
http://saos.fec.gov/aodocs/201707R_1.pdf
