VS STATE

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

er ~.~ ~' z
Ee ,,
- o2
~~ ~

STATE ELECTIONS ENFORCEMENT COMMISSION

'S ?w~,~~ ,,s•~~yy
'~CF',y _ ~aMt~

DECLARATORY RULING 2019-02:
The Use ofCampaign Funds to Offset Candidate's Childcare Costs
On October 19, 2018, the State Elections Enforcement Commission (the "Commission")
received a request for a Declaratory Ruling by Caitlin Clarkson Pereira, a candidate for
state representative during the 2018 election cycle, as to whether public grant funds that
her candidate committee received to run for office through Connecticut's clean elections
program,the Citizens' Election Program ("CEP"), could be used to cover childcare costs
while she was campaigning. The Petitioner had asked this question of Commission staff
during the election cycle and, in Opinion of Counse12018-05: Use ofPublic Funds to
Offset Candidate's Child Care Costs, issued on August 9, 2018, was told that such costs
were not permissible for CEP candidates to pay out of clean elections grant monies.
In her Declaratory Ruling request, the Petitioner argues that the opinion of counsel
misinterpreted the laws and regulations and asks that the Commission reconsider the
result.
At its regular meeting on November 14, 2018, the Commission voted to initiate a
declaratory ruling proceeding responsive to this Petition and the Commission now issues
the following guidance.
Executive Summary
Campaign funds generally may be spent to pay for childcare costs incurred by a candidate
as a result of campaigning as long as such payments are (1)a direct result of campaign
activity which would not exist irrespective of the candidate's campaign;(2)reasonable
and customary for the services rendered; and (3)properly documented by the campaign.
However,for candidates participating in the CEP who have been approved to receive
grant monies from the CEF ("Citizens' Election Fund"), CEP regulations come into
effect and these are much stricter with respect to the expenditure of monies. Childcare
costs are not currently a permissible expense for a committee that has been approved to
receive a grant.
I.

Applicable Law

In general, for expenditures to be considered permissible, they must be made for the
lawful purpose of the committee, and, for a candidate committee, the lawful purpose
means "the promoting of the nomination or election ofthe candidate who established the
committee." General Statutes § 9-607 (g).

20 Trinity Street •Hartford, Connecticut • 06106-1628
Phone:(860) 256-2940 •Toll Free-CT Only:866-SEEC-INFO •Email: SEEC@ct.gov •Internet: www.ct.gov/seec
Affinnntive Action /Egiinl Opporturiit~j Employer

 State Elections Enforcement Commission
Declaratory Ruling 2019-02
General Statutes § 9-607(g)(4)further states:
[E]xpenditures for "personal use" include expenditures to defray normal living
expenses for the candidate, the immediate family of the candidate or any other
individual and expenditures for the personal benefit ofthe candidate or any other
individual as defined in [General Statutes § 9-607(g)(2)]. No goods, services,
funds and contributions received by any committee under this chapter shall be
used or be made availablefor the personal use ofany candidate or any other
individual. No candidate, committee, or any other individual shall use such
goods, services, funds or contributions for any purpose other than campaign
purposes permitted by this chapter.
(Emphasis added.)
For candidates who have been approved to receive a grant from the CEF,however, the
rules are stricter than what is laid out in General Statutes § 9-607(g)alone. CEP grant
recipients must additionally abide by a set of regulations, including Regs. Conn. State
Agencies § 9-706-1 (a), which state:
Allfunds in the depository account ofthe participating candidate's qualified
candidate committee,l including grants and other matching funds distributed from
the Citizens' Election Fund, qualifying contributions and personal funds, shall be
used onlyfor campaign-related expenditures made to directlyfurther the
participating candidate's nomination for election or election to the office specified
in the participating candidate's affidavit certifying the candidate's intent to abide
by Citizens' Election Program requirements.
(Emphasis added.)
The CEP regulations further provide:
(b) In addition to the requirements set out in section 9-706-1 ofthe Regulations of
Connecticut State Agencies, participating candidates and the treasurers of
such participating candidates shall comply with the following citizens'
election program requirements. Participating candidates and the treasurers of
such participating candidates shall not spend funds in the participating

1

A "qualified candidate committee" is defined as:
A candidate committee(A)established to aid or promote the success of any candidate for
nomination or election to the office of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, State
Comptroller, State Treasurer, Secretary ofthe State, state senator or state representative, and(B)
approved by the commission to receive a grantfrom the Citizens'Election Fund under section 9706."

General Statutes § 9-700(12)(emphasis added.

2of8

 State Elections Enforcement Commission
Declaratory Ruling 2019-02
candidate's depository account for the following:
1. Personal use, as described in section 9-607(g)(4) ofthe Connecticut
General Statutes;[and]
2. The participating candidate's personalsupport or expenses, such as for
personal appearance or the candidate's household day-to-day food items,
supplies, merchandise, mortgage, rent, utilities, clothing or attire, even if
such personal items(such as the participating candidate's residence, or
business suits) are usedfor campaign related purposes;....
Regs. Conn. State Agencies § 9-706-2(b)(Emphasis added.)
Commission Staff Advice in Opinion of Counse12018-OS
s

II.

In Opinion of Counse12018-05, Commission staff cited the above and referenced other
scenarios in which it has been asked about the limits on personal use under the Program:
We have been asked, for example, whether public funds could be used to cover
part ofthe mortgage payments for a family member's house that was used as
campaign headquarters, to cover a portion ofthe candidate's personal cell phone
bill since it was used to make calls to campaign staff and voters, and to pay for the
candidate's clothing which was purchased with campaign engagements in mind.
We have looked at whether public funds could be spent to replace the tires of a
car that suffered wear and tear crisscrossing the state during a campaign. We
have been asked whether CEP funds could be used to pay for a candidate's flight
to Amsterdam in order to attend a conference the subject of which was part of his
campaign platform and would result in pictures he could use in mailers.
Staff explained that while it was sympathetic to these requests and understood the
argument that the personal items were being used for campaign-related purposes, it was
concerned with the regulations mandating that funds were not to be spent on items that
are personal in nature, even ifcampaign-related, since the regulations specifically state
that grant funds were to be used "only for campaign-related expenditures made to directly
further" the candidate's nomination for election or election to the specified ofFce.
Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 9-706-1 (a)(emphasis added). Under the regulations, even
ifpersonal items are usedfor campaign related purposes, costs for personal support or
expenses may not be paid out of grant monies. Because of these regulations, staff opined
that CEP grant monies should not be used to pay for a participating candidate's childcare
costs.

3 of 8

 State Elections Enforcement Commission
Declaratory Ruling 2019-02
III.

Commission's Prior Decisions &Other Precedent

The Commission has considered the spending of campaign funds for personal use to be a
serious issue. In one matter it assessed a fine equivalent to twice the amount of what a
CEP candidate committee paid for clothing and other personal items in violation ofthe
personal use statutes and CEP regulations. See In re Audit Reportfor Friends ofGerry
Garcia, File No. 2012-072. The purchase of clothing outside of the CEP has also been
found to be personal use. For example, in In the Matter ofa Complaint by John Bysko, et
al., Old Lyme, File No. 2004-170, the Commission found a violation of the prohibition
against personal use after an exploratory committee used funds to pay for the candidate's
shoes and clothing. In another case, In the Matter ofa Complaint by Adam Gutcheon,
Windsor, File No. 2002-192, the Commission ordered the respondent candidate to forfeit
the equivalent of what his committee had spent on clothing out of campaign funds. See
also In the Matter ofComplaints by Tom Kelly, Bridgeport, File Nos. 2011-090 & 097
(finding that political committee's reimbursements to chairperson for telephone,
computer, and Internet access bills, without any records substantiating relation to
committee, violated personal use prohibition); In the Matter ofGovernment Action Fund
(GAF PAC), File No. 2008-003 (concluding that a political committee's payment of
chairman senator's personal cell phone bill and his personal credit card without adequate
documentation, as well as payments for him to attend legislative conferences, raised
personal use concerns).
Over forty years ago, the Commission did, however, address the permissibility of paying
for childcare with privately raised campaign funds. In 1976,the Commission issued an
advisory opinion that found the cost of care for a dependent to be part oftraveling
expenses and therefore a permissible expenditure. See Advisory Opinion 1976-23: Cost
ofCarefor Dependents. The Commission considered the fact that the statutes permit a
campaign funds to be used to pay for the candidate's expenses for postage, telegrams,
telephoning, stationery, expressage, traveling, meals and lodging provided that the
candidate adequately documented the expenses. The Commission then reasoned that
freeing a candidate to travel by paying for his or her childcare was as necessary as
procuring a bus ticket or renting a car since "if such care were not purchased, the
candidate, presumably, would not be able to travel to attend whatever campaign functions
were required, as surely as if the candidate could not purchase a ticket on public
transportation." Id.
We also looked to other jurisdictions with clean elections programs that provide grant
monies. Of the ten that provided responses to Commission staff's survey, four of them —
Massachusetts, West Virginia, Oakland, CA,and Tucson, AZ —would not allow
campaign funds to be used for childcare. Two jurisdictions —Maryland and Minnesota2 —
allowpublic funds to be spent on childcare costs. Three jurisdictions have not opined on
the subject —Maine, Michigan, and Seattle, WA. New York City's program has the most
Z Minnesota has a specific statute that recognizes the cost of childcare for a candidate's children while
campaigning as a legitimate expenditure, whether public or general campaign funds are used. See Minn.
Stat. § 10A.01, subd. 26(11).

4of8

 State Elections Enforcement Commission
Declaratory Ruling 2019-02
comprehensively articulated approach —allowing for privately raised funds to be used
when certain conditions are met but prohibiting the use of matching grant monies given
by the state.3
IV.

Analysis

While the Petitioner's request was limited to the use of clean election grant monies, the
Commission will take this opportunity to point out that it is not retracting its 1976
advisory opinion and that it would be a permissible expenditure ofprivately raised
campaign funds to cover the costs of childcare incurred by a candidate while
campaigning as long as such payments are:(1)a direct result of campaign activity which
would not exist but for the candidate's campaign;(2)reasonable and customary for the
services rendered; and(3)properly documented by the campaign.4

3 Prior to 2018, New York City's matching funds program had a specific statutory provision that prohibited
the use of campaign funds to cover childcare costs. Section 3-702(21)(b) ofthe administrative code ofthe
City of New York had provided: "Campaign funds shall not be converted by any person to a personal use
which is unrelated to a political campaign. Expenditures not in furtherance of a political campaign for
elective office include the following:...(6)Tuition payments and childcare costs; ...."

After a series of hearings in 2018,the New York City legislature passed legislation on October 31, 20l 8 to
permit campaign funds to be used for certain childcare expenses provided specified criteria had been met.
Specifically, the language modified subdivision 21 of section 3-702 to permit campaign funds to be spent
on:
13. Childcare services, provided that:(i) the candidate has received an approved statement of
campaign childcare eligibility, pursuant to subdivision 23 of this section, demonstrating that such
services are for a child or children under thirteen years of age for whom the candidate is a primary
caregiver and that either the need for such services would not exist but for the campaign or the
candidate has experienced a significant loss of salary or wage earnings that would not have
occurred but for the campaign; and (ii) that expenditures for such services may only be incurred
during the calendar year ofthe election, and the year immediately preceding the calendar year of
the election, and may not be incurred after such election is held.
The legislation further provides that such childcare expenses are exempted from the expenditure limit for
the first $20,000 spent in the election year. Notably, the legislation only applies to nonpublic campaign
funds and only during the calendar year ofthe election and the immediately preceding year.
See A Local Law to Amend the Administrative Code ofthe City of New York, in Relation to Permitting the
Use of Campaign Funds for Certain Childcare Expenses, File No. 0899-2018.
When a committee anticipates it will pay someone over $100 for services, it is required to have a written
agreement in place which lays out the nature and duration of the fee arrangement and describes the scope of
the work to be performed before any work is begun, and is also required to maintain records documenting
the actual work performed or services rendered. See Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 9-607-1. In this
particular case, where persona] use concerns are raised even if the payment is well below $100, the
Commission still urges some base level documentation ofthe childcare services being provided at all
amounts, such as the dates and hours worked, the associated fee, and the campaign activity that necessitated
the childcare.
4

5 of8

 State Elections Enforcement Commission
Declaratory Ruling 2019-02
As far as whether campaign funds may be used to cover a candidate's childcare costs
while campaigning, the Commission confirms its staffs advice that under the current law
and regulations, once a committee is approved to receive CEP grant funds, its campaign
funds —whether public grant monies or unspent qualifying contributions —may not be
used to pay for such expenses. The regulations that come into play once a campaign has
been approved for a grant state that all expenditures must "directly further" the
candidate's campaign and "even if' personal items are used for campaign related
purposes, costs for personal support or expenses may not be paid out of grant monies.
The Commission reminds candidates that these regulations only come into play once the
candidate committee has been approved to receive a grant. As such, the candidate
committee of a candidate intending to participate in the CEP may pay for the candidate's
childcare expenses with potentially qualifying contributions raised to demonstrate
adequate public support in connection with the grant application, provided the three
criteria listed above have been met. This may occur up until the committee is approved
for a grant.
Although the Citizens' Election Program is not a silver bullet for all election disparities,
in candidates or results, it is worth pointing out that Connecticut's monetary
competitiveness in state elections—which is, roughly speaking, where the lesser the
difference in spending between opponents equates to greater competitiveness—has made
notable strides since the advent ofthe Program. In 2004, the year before the Citizens'
Election Program was signed into law, Connecticut had ranked 23rd in the nation for
monetary competitiveness.s In 2008,the first full run of the Program for the General
Assembly, Connecticut's ranking jumped to sixth. The state has ranked in the top four in
monetary competitiveness in every election cycle since 2010, when the Program was in
full force at both the statewide and General Assembly levels. In fact, in the last election
cycle for which is data is available, 2016, Connecticut ranked second in the nation. As
national experts have noted: "Clearly, Connecticut's public funding program had a robust
effect on making legislative general elections more financially competitive. Indeed, the
data has repeatedly demonstrated that, since the 2008 adoption ofthe public funding
program, Connecticut has consistently had some of the highest rates of monetarily
competitive races anywhere in the country."6
The Commission is receptive to the policy concerns expressed by the Petitioner and
commenters, and the laudable goal ofincreasing the opportunities for parents of young
children to more easily participate in state elections. Similar discussions may be had
5 Fo1lowTheMoney.org, https://www.followthemone ~~or tools/ci (last visited March 29, 2019).
6 Pete Quist, Connecticut Public Funding and Election Competition,
https://www.followthemone~or~/research/blo~,/connecticut-public-funding-and-election-competition (last
visited March 29, 2019); see also J T Stepleton, Competitiveness Index,
https://www.followthemone~g,/research/blo competitiveness-index (last visited March 29, 2019)("The
role of money in the competitiveness of American elections has been addressed time and again. However,
many observers fail to fully comprehend the extent to which candidates are either burdened by monetary
disadvantages or bolstered by a fundraising edge.... Monetary competitiveness is more prevalent in some
states, especially those with public financing programs.").

6of8

 State Elections Enforcement Commission
Declaratory Ruling 2019-02
about campaign spending that involve other circumstances in the candidate's life, such as
income (e.g. having to forgo employment hours in order to campaign), care for non-child
dependents (e.g. elder care), and other foreseeable and hard to foresee variations on the
present question. These questions involve core issues concerning not only the purpose of
this state's landmark public financing program but also the use ofthe public fisc. The
answers to these questions may involve more than a simple "yes" or "no" but instead may
be a balancing of concerns resulting in limits on the amount or timing offunds that may
be spent and documentation requirements. This is the approach taken with respect to
many ofthe permissible expenditures that form the basis for Connecticut's clean
financing program.
Answering these questions should allow input from all stakeholders and would be ideally
suited to a legislative public hearing. This is the approach used with New York City's
public financing program. Public hearings and multiple drafts ofthe bill resulted in a
carefully reasoned and clear approach to the issue. New York City chose to set limits by
allowing the use of privately raised money but not public funds and by allowing such
payments only during the two years prior to the election. They also required some
additional documentation, addressed who could be a care-giver and provided that
childcare provided for free or at a discount would not be deemed an in-kind contribution.
See Council of City of NY Intro No. 0899-2018, Permitting the Use of Campaign Funds
for Certain Childcare Expenses(October 23, 2018). New York City limited the exception
to care for children under 13 and did not address care for other dependents. While that
may or not be Connecticut's approach, those would all be options for thoughtful
discussion.
The Commission and its staff are committed to further researching these issues and
working with the legislature, should it choose, to craft the best possible solution for the
people of Connecticut.
V.

Conclusion

Privately raised campaign funds may generally be spent to pay for childcare costs
incurred by a candidate as a result of campaigning as long as such payments are(1)a
direct result of campaign activity which would not exist but for ofthe candidate's
campaign;(2)reasonable and customary for the services rendered; and (3) properly
documented by the campaign.
For candidates participating in the CEP,campaign funds may be spent on such costs up
until the campaign has been approved to receive a clean elections grant from the CEF.
Once a committee is approved for a grant, monies may not be spent on childcare. A
change in legislation or regulation would be needed to alter this outcome. Commission
staff stand ready to work with the Petitioner to assist in this effort.
This constitutes a declaratory ruling pursuant to General Statutes § 4-176. A declaratory
ruling has the same status and binding effect as an order issued in a contested case and
shall be a final decision for purposes of appeal in accordance with the provisions of

7of8

 State Elections Enforcement Commission
Declaratory Ruling 2019-02
General Statutes § 4-183, pursuant to General Statutes § 4-176(h). Notice has been
given to all persons who have requested notice of declaratory rulings on this subject
matter.
Adopted this ~rd day of April, 2019 at Hartford, Connecticut by a vote of the
Commission.

Anthony J.

8of8

agno, Chairman