Federal Election Commission Main Page
August 8, 1986
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
ADVISORY OPINION 1986-28
Bob Ryan
State Senator
3020 S. Westwind Road
Las Vegas, Nevada 89102
Dear Mr. Ryan:
This refers to your letters dated July 20 and July 12, 1986,
requesting an advisory opinion concerning application of the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended ("the Act"), to
the use of your residence as a campaign headquarters.
You state that you are a candidate for Congress in the First
Congressional District of Nevada. You are using your residence
as the headquarters for your Congressional campaign. You state
that this residence is the "primary residence" of you and your
wife and that it is "owned jointly" by both of you "in equal
proportions."1/ You explain that one-half of your residence is
"not used at all for campaign activity, and the other half is
used intermittently." Documents filed with the Commission
indicate that your principal campaign committee is the Committee
to Elect Bob Ryan and that Victoria Ryan, your wife, is the
treasurer and custodian of its records.2/ You ask whether your
campaign committee is required to pay you and your wife for the
campaign use of your residence.
1/ In a telephone conversation on July 29, 1986, with an
attorney in the Office of General Counsel you also stated that
this residence is a single-family detached house and does not
include any apartment-type rooms that could be rented as another
residence or as office space.
2/ In the same telephone conversation described in footnote 1,
you confirmed Mrs. Ryan's status with your committee and
explained that she performs her campaign duties on a volunteer
basis using your jointly owned residence to do so.
The Commission concludes that your campaign committee is not
required by the Act or Commission regulations to pay you and your
wife for the campaign use of your joint residence. In addition,
the value of the campaign use of your residence is not a
contribution to your campaign committee from either you or your
wife.
As a general rule the Act and Commission regulations provide
that a contribution of anything of value is subject to both the
disclosure requirements and the contribution limits of the Act.
See generally 2 U.S.C. SS 431(8)(A), 434(b), 441a(a); and 11 CFR
100.7(a)(1)(iii), 104.13(a), 110.1. Commission regulations,
however, provide that a candidate may make unlimited campaign
expenditures from personal funds. 11 CFR 110.10(a).3/ Personal
funds includes "any assets" in which the candidate has an
ownership interest recognized under applicable state law and that
otherwise satisfy the Commission's regulations at 11 CFR
110.10(b).
The Commission has previously recognized that real property
in which the candidate has an exclusive or shared ownership
interest is an asset that may be used for campaign purposes
pursuant to 11 CFR 110.10. See Advisory Opinions 1984-60 and
1977-12. Where the candidate used his real property for both
business and campaign office purposes, but not as his residence,
the Commission concluded that the operating expenses of the
office, including its fair market rental value, would have to be
allocated between his business and his campaign. Advisory
Opinion 1977-12. The allocable costs for the campaign use were
required to be reported as a campaign expenditure. In a later
opinion the Commission stated that the Act permitted a candidate
to receive payment from his principal campaign committee for
using one room of a house he owned that was also used as his
residence. Advisory Opinion 1983-1, see also Advisory 1985-42.
Significantly, the Commission did not conclude that the Act
required that the candidates be paid for the campaign use of
their property.
The foregoing opinions involved one instance where the real
property was not the residence of the candidate (Advisory Opinion
1977-12) and others where, although the property was the
candidate's residence, payment for campaign use was made by the
campaign committee to the candidate (Advisory Opinions 1983-1 and
1985-42). None of these opinions involved real property owned
3/ This exception does not apply to presidential candidates who
qualify for Federal funding of their campaigns under Chapters 95
or 96 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. SS 9001 et seq. and
SS 9031 et seq.
jointly by a candidate and spouse. They also did not reach any
issues regarding the applicability of Commission regulations that
allow an exemption from reporting, as well as contribution
limits, for the unpaid use of residential premises when an
individual volunteers personal campaign services to a candidate.
Those regulations are material to the situation presented here.
Commission regulations provide, in part, that neither a
contribution nor an expenditure results if an individual, in
volunteering personal services to a candidate on the volunteer's
residential premises, provides the use of real or personal
property to the candidate for candidate-related activity. 11 CFR
100.7(b)(4), 100.8(b)(5). Your request states that you have
"limited financial resources and run an austere campaign," and
for that stated reason you propose to use the jointly-owned
residence as your campaign headquarters. You have also indicated
that your wife uses the jointly-owned residence to provide her
volunteer services to your campaign as treasurer and bookkeeper.
Because both you and your wife are using your jointly-owned
residence in connection with providing your respective volunteer
personal services to your campaign effort, the Commission
concludes that the cited regulation exemption would apply.
Accordingly, for purposes of the Act the value of the campaign
use of your residential premises is not a contribution from
either you or your wife, and your committee is not required to
report it. It also follows that the described use of your
residence is not subject to the contribution limits of the Act.
This response constitutes an advisory opinion concerning
application of the Act and Commission regulations to the specific
transaction or activity set forth in your request. See 2 U.S.C.
SS 437f.