California AB 2655: New Rules for Campaign Funds and Security Personnel

What Does California AB 2655 Require for Campaign Security Expenses?

California AB 2655 requires that campaign funds used for security personnel must go only to individuals or companies holding the appropriate licenses under state law.

This means candidates and campaign committees can no longer pay unlicensed individuals for security services with campaign money, regardless of the perceived need or urgency.

The law is designed to improve public safety and accountability by ensuring that all security personnel paid with campaign funds meet California's licensing standards, which typically include background checks, training, and regulatory oversight.

For example, if a candidate previously hired a friend or volunteer for event security, AB 2655 now prohibits using campaign funds for that purpose unless the person is properly licensed. This change may require campaigns to review their current practices and update their vendor lists to include only licensed security providers.

• Only licensed security professionals can be paid with campaign funds.
• Unlicensed individuals are not eligible for payment from campaign accounts.
• Campaigns must verify licensing status before making payments.

AB 2655 closes loopholes and raises compliance standards for campaign security spending.

Sources: Official source

Who Is Affected by AB 2655’s Security Personnel Licensing Rules?

AB 2655 affects all candidates for elective office in California and their campaign committees, regardless of the size or type of campaign.

This includes candidates for local, county, and statewide offices, as well as ballot measure committees that may use campaign funds for security at events or offices.

Campaign treasurers, compliance officers, and consultants are also impacted, as they are responsible for ensuring that all disbursements comply with the new law.

A less obvious impact is on smaller campaigns that may have relied on informal or volunteer security arrangements in the past. These campaigns will now need to budget for licensed professionals, which could increase costs and require new vendor relationships.

• Candidates for city, county, and state offices
• Campaign committees and treasurers
• Ballot measure committees using security services
• Consultants and compliance professionals

Every campaign using security services must review its practices under AB 2655.

Sources: Official source

How to Comply with AB 2655: Steps for Campaigns and Committees

To comply with AB 2655, campaigns must verify that any security personnel paid with campaign funds are properly licensed under California law.

This involves checking the license status of individuals or companies through the California Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (BSIS) or other relevant state agencies before making payments.

Campaigns should update their internal policies and train staff to require proof of licensing for all security-related expenses. Keeping detailed records of licenses and payment justifications will help demonstrate compliance if audited.

A practical tip is to create a checklist or approval process for all security expenditures, including a step to confirm licensing status and retain documentation. This approach not only reduces risk but also streamlines compliance for future reporting cycles.

• Verify licenses with the California BSIS before hiring.
• Require vendors to provide proof of current licensing.
• Document all security-related payments and justifications.
• Update campaign policies and train staff on new requirements.

Proactive verification and documentation are key to avoiding compliance issues under AB 2655.

Sources: Official source · California Bureau of Security and Investigative Services

Potential Penalties and Risks for Non-Compliance with AB 2655

Failure to comply with AB 2655 may expose campaigns to legal, financial, and reputational risks, including possible enforcement actions by state regulators.

While the law’s specific penalties depend on enforcement and regulatory guidance, improper use of campaign funds can lead to fines, required reimbursements, and negative publicity.

In some cases, non-compliance may trigger audits or investigations by the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), which oversees campaign finance laws in the state.

A real-world scenario: a campaign that unknowingly pays an unlicensed individual for security could be required to return the funds, amend its reports, and face additional scrutiny in future filings. This risk is especially high for campaigns that rely on informal arrangements or do not have robust compliance systems in place.

• Potential fines or required reimbursements
• Increased risk of audits or investigations
• Damage to campaign reputation and public trust

Non-compliance with AB 2655 can have serious consequences for campaigns and candidates.

Sources: Official source · California Fair Political Practices Commission

Examples and Best Practices for Campaign Security Compliance

Campaigns can ensure compliance with AB 2655 by adopting best practices for vetting, hiring, and documenting security personnel.

For example, a statewide candidate’s committee might create a list of pre-approved, licensed security vendors and require all event organizers to use only those vendors for campaign events.

A smaller city council campaign could assign a compliance officer to check the BSIS license database before hiring anyone for security, and keep copies of all licenses on file for reporting purposes.

A non-obvious but critical best practice is to include a licensing verification clause in all security contracts, making the vendor responsible for maintaining current licensing and notifying the campaign of any changes. This shifts some compliance burden to the vendor and provides an extra layer of protection for the campaign.

• Maintain a list of approved, licensed security vendors.
• Require proof of licensing before payment.
• Include licensing clauses in contracts.
• Train staff and volunteers on compliance requirements.

Integrating licensing checks into contracts and vendor selection helps campaigns stay compliant and avoid last-minute issues.

Sources: Official source · California Bureau of Security and Investigative Services

Comparison: Licensed vs. Unlicensed Security for Campaigns

Choosing between licensed and unlicensed security personnel has major implications for campaign compliance, safety, and risk management under AB 2655.

Licensed security providers offer regulatory oversight, insurance, and professional training, while unlicensed individuals may lack these protections and are now ineligible for campaign payments.

The table below compares key factors to help campaigns make informed decisions and avoid compliance pitfalls.

Campaigns should always opt for licensed providers to ensure legal compliance and protect both the candidate and the public.

Licensed security is now the only compliant option for campaign fund payments under California law.

Sources: Official source