How personal security became a major cost for running for office
By Michael Jones
The risk of political violence is no longer confined to rallies or campaign events. It now shadows public servants at home, in their districts, and even while performing official duties.
As the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman underscored in June, what used to feel like abstract threats have become fatal and are changing the calculus for who can safely run for office and who’s willing to stay in it.
Although members of Congress earn more than four times the annual salary of the average American, a first-of-its-kind report released this week from Vote Mama Foundation, a nonprofit organization that provides research and analysis on the political participation of mothers, finds that over 860 federal candidates spent more than $41 million on personal security between 2014 and 2024, a 7,015 percent increase over the decade.
Candidates are using campaign funds for bodyguards, cybersecurity, and home alarm systems, with women of color accounting for nearly two-thirds of all security spending by women—a data point that speaks volumes about how threats are unevenly distributed by race and gender and fall hardest on those trying to break barriers.
The report, which drew on Federal Election Commission data, positions campaign funds for security (CFS) as a vital, tax-neutral tool for protecting candidates and their families—particularly those with caregiving responsibilities—and urges continued institutional support to ensure safety is not a barrier to public service.
“We took the lead because no one else was asking the question,” Vote Mama Foundation president and CEO Liuba Grechen Shirley told me in an email. “If we want a government that truly reflects the people it serves, we have to make sure it’s safe to run—and stay—in office.”
Grechen Shirley, who unsuccessfully ran for Congress in New York in 2018 against a 13-term Republican incumbent, became the first woman in history to receive federal approval to spend campaign funds on childcare in a unanimous and bipartisan decision by the FEC that gained support from Hillary Clinton and two dozen members of Congress. Vote Mama Foundation leveraged the expertise gained from tracking candidates’ use of campaign funds for childcare to create the first-of-its-kind data set.
Spending for personal security spiked in the 2020 and 2024 election cycles, accounting for nearly half of the total. Both parties used CFS: Democrats spent approximately $19 million and Republicans almost $15 million. The top presidential spenders were Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., while Sens. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) led among congressional candidates.
“When candidates have to worry about doxxing or political violence, it’s not just a personal risk—it’s a systemic failure,” Grechen Shirley added. “The threats are escalating, and the personal cost of public service is higher than it’s ever been in recent memory.”
The report comes as members of Congress returned to their districts and states for the August recess.
Before the break, House party leaders announced new security enhancements, including up to $20,000 for members to install more comprehensive home security equipment. A new $5,000 monthly personal security allotment through the end of the fiscal year can be used for licensed security personnel in-district or at home.
Additionally, local law enforcement memoranda of understanding will be expanded for added protection when threats arise. Members can select their providers and either be reimbursed or have the House pay vendors directly.
House Administration Ranking Member Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.) told me last month that the plan doesn’t go as far as he wanted, but it’s a meaningful step forward.
“I’m grateful that we’re able to do something. It’s short-term, right? And it’s not everything I wanted, certainly, but it’s substantive enough,” he said. “Now we’ll look to hopefully enhance it.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) characterized the enhancements as the result of good-faith talks between him, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), House Administration Committee Chair Bryan Steil (R-Wisc.), and Morelle.
“These are security enhancements that were negotiated in a bipartisan way,” Jeffries said. “There’s additional work that needs to be done as we cross over into the next fiscal year.”
Morelle told me that the threat rate against members of Congress has increased tenfold over the past decade.
“That should be alarming to everyone,” he said.
While Morelle and Steil may approach the issue from different vantage points, he noted, “We’re all nervous about it—even if it’s not about ourselves, certainly our families and our staff.”
Morelle said there was “good faith” among leadership to find common ground.
“You can’t ensure that anyone is safe all the time,” he told me. “But you can certainly improve the odds and give people some degree of agency over themselves—and that’s what I think this does.”
Grechen Shirley told me that the Vote Mama Foundation’s new report makes clear that candidates use this resource when it’s available and they know about it. Going forward, the organization is tracking which states have authorized campaign funds for security, with North Dakota recently becoming the tenth state to approve the initiative.
Vote Mama Foundation created a template request letter for candidates and elected officials to submit an approval request to their state’s ethics commission. Vote Mama Lobby is working to advocate for these changes at the state level and ensure state and local candidates in all 50 states can use their campaign funds for security expenses when running for and serving in elected office.
While Vote Mama Foundation is leading the charge to normalize campaign-funded security, the crisis itself demands a far more comprehensive response to include continued bipartisan cooperation on Capitol Hill to expand protections for members and staff, more robust law enforcement coordination in the districts they serve, and a political culture that takes threats seriously regardless of party. Ultimately, the burden can’t fall solely on candidates to fund their own safety because protecting democracy means protecting the people who make it work, too.
Michael Jones is an independent Capitol Hill correspondent and contributor for COURIER. He is the author of Once Upon a Hill, a newsletter about Congressional politics.
