WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

S 3386

Authorizes use of campaign funds for security expenses of candidate, officeholder, staff, and certain family members.*

2026-2027 Regular Session Introduced by Paul Sarlo

Allows campaign funds to cover reasonable security costs for candidates, officeholders, and their close associates when threats exist, with a $10,000 cap.

Received in the Assembly without Reference, 2nd Reading
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · S 3386

Overview

S 3386 (New Jersey, 222nd Session) authorizes use of campaign funds to pay for reasonable security costs for a candidate or officeholder, their immediate family, and campaign staff, when such security measures address ongoing dangers or threats arising from the individual's status or duties. The bill sets categories of allowable security-related expenditures, imposes a $10,000 per candidacy cap on physical security equipment, restricts certain uses, requires record-keeping, and directs the Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) to issue implementing rules. It takes effect immediately.

Main purpose and intent

  • To permit campaign funds to cover reasonable security costs for candidates, officeholders, their immediate family, and campaign staff when threats exist because of the individual's public role.
  • To align campaign finance practices with heightened security needs and contemporary security concerns.

Key provisions and changes

  • Eligible uses (b): Expenditures may be made for:
    • Non-structural security devices (e.g., security hardware, locks, alarm systems, motion detectors, security cameras).
    • Structural security devices (e.g., wiring, lighting, gates, doors, fencing) used solely for security and not to improve property value.
    • Security personnel and services that are bona fide, legitimate, professional, and compliant with applicable security officer laws.
    • Cybersecurity software, devices, and services.
  • Expenditure cap (c): Total expenditures for purchasing or installing physical security equipment may not exceed $10,000 per candidacy.
  • Prohibited expenditures (d):
    • No purchases of firearms or ammunition.
    • No payments to immediate family members or entities owned/operated by them.
    • No home improvements not expressly authorized by the bill.
  • Records and transparency (e):
    • Campaigns must retain documentation (receipts, invoices, contracts) in accordance with existing record-keeping rules and ELEC regulations.
    • Documents are public records, but security plans, designs, or schematics revealing the type or location of security measures may not be disclosed.
  • Asset treatment (f): Security devices and ongoing services become campaign assets and must be dissolved when the campaign ends or the officeholder leaves office; equipment should be sold for cost or reasonable value.
  • Regulatory authority (g): ELEC will promulgate implementing rules under the Administrative Procedure Act.
  • Definitions (h): “Immediate family” includes the candidate/officeholder, their spouse, child, parent, or sibling, and the respective in-law relatives living in the same household.
  • Effective date (2): Immediate effect.

Who/what is affected

  • Candidates, candidate committees, joint candidates committees, and legislative leadership committees.
  • Immediate family members and campaign staff of the candidate or officeholder (indirectly affected via security expenditures).
  • The Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) as the regulatory body to adopt rules implementing the statute.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Status: Reported from Senate Committee with Amendments (2nd Reading) and referred to Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee as of May 21, 2026.
  • Introduction: Introduced in the Senate on February 9, 2026.
  • Implementation: The act directs ELEC to promulgate regulations; takes effect immediately upon enactment.
  • Record-keeping: Aligns with existing record retention requirements (P.L.1973, c.83) and ELEC regulations.

Notable considerations

  • Security-related expenditures are limited to legitimate protective needs linked to threat status, not general property improvement.
  • Public disclosure limits protect sensitive security planning information while preserving transparency through receipts and contracts.
  • The bill reflects a policy shift to recognize security costs as a legitimate campaign expense under defined conditions, with oversight through ELEC.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.