Skip Navigation
Fellows

FEC Childcare Ruling Could Lower Institutional Barriers to Office

The Federal Election Commission ruled last month that candidates for federal office can spend campaign funds on childcare. In a male-dominated, aging Congress, the ruling could carve out some space for more representative newcomers.

  • Kristen Coopie Allen
June 21, 2018

Last month, the Federal Elec­tion Commis­sion handed down an advis­ory opin­ion that may only bolster the record-break­ing and stead­ily increas­ing number of women running for federal office. Liuba Grechen Shir­ley, a Demo­cratic candid­ate for New York’s 2nd District, asked the FEC to rule on the use of campaign funds for child­care. Her trans­ition to congres­sional candid­ate from a work-from-home mother of two  left Grechen Shir­ley in a situ­ation that most parents can relate to: wonder­ing who will help to care for her chil­dren while she meets the demands of an increas­ingly hectic profes­sional sched­ule. Since the need for care was a direct consequence of her polit­ical campaign, Grechen Shir­ley peti­tioned the FEC to issue a ruling on whether campaign funds can be used to cover child­care costs.

Senator Tammy Duck­worth’s April 9th deliv­ery of her daugh­ter made her the first sitting Senator to deliver a child while in office. It has also brought the idea of the Congres­sional baby boom back into the spot­light, some­thing that female members have been fight­ing to do for years. Being a parent and a member of Congress does­n’t have to be mutu­ally exclus­ive, but it also isn’t easy, accord­ing to many. Congres­sional member­ship is, for the most part, domin­ated by college-educated profes­sion­als well-entrenched in their seats, but the 115th Congress features a record number of female and Hispanic and Latinx members. (On the other hand, it’s also one of the oldest Congresses in history, with an aver­age age of 57.8 in the House and 61.8 in the Senate. For new House members, the aver­age age is 50).

The Commis­sion relies on some­thing known as the “irre­spect­ive test” to determ­ine whether expenses are legit­im­ate, campaign-related outlays, or if they are expenses that fall outside of campaign or office­holder activ­ity. The former expenses are accept­able; the latter are considered to be for personal use, and spend­ing campaign funds no such activ­it­ies is prohib­ited.   So, for example, a candid­ate or campaign may purchase food for a meet­ing or event related to the campaign; but for that weekly grocery trip to stock the fridge at home? That’s not an accept­able use of funds. Campaign funds must be spent on activ­it­ies related to the act of running for or hold­ing office.

Requests such as the one made by Grechen Shir­ley are considered by the FEC on a case-by-case basis, allow­ing the Commis­sion­ers to determ­ine how the specif­ics of a situ­ation fit into the nuances of current stat­utes, opin­ions, and case law.  The opin­ion, certi­fied by a 4–0 vote of the Commis­sion, recog­nizes that child­care expenses incurred during campaigns for federal office “would not exist irre­spect­ive of… candid­acy.” In other words, if Grechen Shir­ley was not running for office, she would not incur the addi­tional expenses of full-time child care required to allow her to main­tain a compet­it­ive primary campaign.  

In an op-ed Grechen Shir­ley published on the Wash­ing­ton Post, she cites the need for the removal of “the insti­tu­tional barri­ers block­ing moth­ers from running for office.” During the Commis­sion’s  May 10th meet­ing, Commis­sioner Ellen Wein­traub agreed with this senti­ment, further expand­ing on the implic­a­tions this ruling may provide:

“I think at a time when a lot of people are concerned about polit­ical power concen­trated in the hands of a smal­ler and smal­ler segment of soci­ety a request like this may help to open the door to polit­ical activ­ity by younger candid­ates, female candid­ates, people of color, work­ing class people and gener­ally may help to advance a more diverse group of repres­ent­at­ives who are perhaps more repres­ent­at­ive of the coun­try at large… so I thank you again for rais­ing this import­ant ques­tion.”

Level­ing the play­ing field for typic­ally under­rep­res­en­ted candid­ates may not guar­an­tee that Congress becomes more repres­ent­at­ive, but this chance at access can only help to improve the chance at making it happen.

Kristen Coopie Allen is a Visit­ing Assist­ant Professor of Polit­ical Science at Duquesne Univer­sity and an adjunct instructor in the Depart­ment of History at Carne­gie Mellon Univer­sity.ge: 

(Image: Flickr.com/afge)


Purchas­ing Power: The Conver­sa­tion

This post is part of the special series designed to provide well-informed comment­ary, fresh ques­tions, and new answers about the facts of money in polit­ics. Dive in to 'Purchas­ing Power: The Conver­sa­tion’ here. 

The views expressed by blog contrib­ut­ors are the authors’ own and not neces­sar­ily the views of the Bren­nan Center.