Politicians Are Spending More Money on Security as They Increasingly Become Targets

Federal campaign and The political action committee’s spending on security during the 2024 election cycle was more than five times what it spent before the 2016 election, according to a new report released Thursday.

The Security Project report from the nonpartisan group Public Service Alliance notes that the increased spending comes as violent threats against public employees and their families increase at all levels of government. Justin Sherman, acting vice president of the Security Project and author of the report, finds the rising costs of combating such threats concerning and says that for some applicants, it can create additional financial pressure.

“No candidate, regardless of party or where in the country they are running, should have to weigh the pressure of holding public office against threats against them or their family,” Sherman said.

A Minnesota Star Tribune investigation recently found that threats against employees at the Minnesota State Capitol increased from 18 incidents in 2024 to 92 in 2025, and in the first two months of 2026 there were 45. Other research from the Public Service Alliance found that reported threats against the families of officials increased by 3,700 percent between 2015 and 2025, and an investigation conducted in 2025 by the Pew Research Center found an overwhelming number of Americans on both sides of the political spectrum agree that politically motivated violence is on the rise.

The Public Service Alliance report examines spending data tracked by the Federal Election Commission over the past 10 years. Although much of the costs identified by the report relate to securing campaign events, spending on digital security, such as data deletion or online threat monitoring services, has skyrocketed. According to the report, campaigns and committees spent just over $900,000 in the 2023-2024 cycle, compared to about $184,000 in the cycle eight years ago, an increase of nearly 400%.

The report also said that spending to secure candidates’ homes, such as purchasing alarms and fencing, also increased, from about $130,000 in the 2017-2018 cycle to just over $300,000 in the 2023-2024 cycle.

Sherman says the limitations of FEC data can make it difficult to track whether security spending is proactive or reactive. The disbursement forms completed by campaigns require only a brief description of what was purchased and usually don’t include much else.

At the state level, legislatures are considering reforms that would ensure that political candidates could pay to secure their offices, homes and personal information while on the campaign trail. Currently, only a handful of states have laws that explicitly say candidates can use campaign funds to pay for security, says Helen Brewer, senior policy specialist at the National Conference of State Legislatures. Brewer says lawmakers say they’ve seen an increase in threats and incidents, and it’s happening to people on both sides of the aisle in various states. “These are people who are seeing this everywhere, which is unfortunate,” Brewer said.

Utah State Senator Mike McKell has currently served in his state’s legislature for 14 years, which he does in addition to being a practicing attorney. In recent years, he says, his personal law office has been vandalized and his colleagues on both sides of the aisle have had their homes vandalized, their tires slashed and been targeted in other ways.

McKell recently helped pass an election law that includes provisions clearly stating that candidates and officials can use campaign money to purchase security systems for their offices, homes and places of business. (Utah is a part-time legislature.) McKell says, “The part of my bill that I hate the most is the security part, but that’s because we need it and because it’s a problem in the state of Utah.” »