Just like candidates running for federal office, Arizona’s attorney general says political candidates running for office in the state can use private campaign funds for child care costs.

Attorney General Kris Mayes issued an opinion Monday establishing child care as a permissible campaign expense. Four Democratic legislators raised the question with Mayes, who said candidates may use campaign funds for child care only if it enables a candidate to perform campaign activities. 

“If the purpose of paying for dependent care is to enable the candidate to spend time on the campaign, instead of performing a task they otherwise must perform personally, then it is ‘for the purpose of influencing an election’ and is a permissible campaign expenditure,” Mayes wrote in her opinion. 

The four Democrats who requested the opinion are all mothers of young children: Reps. Stacey Travers, D-Tempe; Sarah Liguori, D-Phoenix; Quantá Crews, D-Phoenix; and Sen. Eva Diaz, D-Tolleson.

Travers, a mother of two young children, said Tuesday the request for Mayes’ opinion came from lawmakers who want to see political office become more accessible for parents in the state. 

“If you’re an actor and you get your hair done, your makeup done, that’s a tax deduction. You can deduct that from your taxes because it’s part of your job,” Travers said. “Campaigning is part of your (a political candidate’s) job … In order to get where you want to be, you need to audition. We’re auditioning just like actors are.”

Many political candidates will shy away from bringing their children to campaign events or in extreme heat to canvas door-to-door in their districts. For single parents, finding affordable child care presents an even greater challenge to anyone interested in running for office, Travers said. 

The first-term lawmaker has been able to turn to her husband and her 81-year-old mother who lives with her for support, but Travers said it’s not a full-proof solution.

“I’ve been incredibly lucky to have my husband be able to pick up the slack but there are times where he has things that he needs to do and he has a life and then it does become ‘who takes care of the kids,’” Travers said. “I’m barely getting by trying to raise two kids with a husband and a parent living with me.”

Less than 7% of Arizona legislators are mothers with minor children, according to a news release from Vote Mama Foundation, an organization that tracks the use of campaign funds for child care. 

Sarah Hague, the chief program officer at Vote Mama, said in the news release that Mayes’ opinion removes a structural barrier that has historically prevented parents of young children from running for office. 

“Caregiving responsibilities should never be the reason someone cannot run for office or serve their community. Unfortunately, for many candidates, the ability to run for office hinges on access to childcare, and the cost can keep them out of the political arena entirely,” Hague said.

Arizona is among 35 states and Washington D.C. to allow political candidates to use campaign funds for child care purposes. In 2018, the Federal Election Commission ruled that federal candidates can use campaign funds to pay for child care costs associated with time spent campaigning.

“Arizonans with political aspirations will have one less barrier of entry into political public service. Political leaders should look like Arizona and I’m pleased to see child care won’t be a reason a mom, dad or caregiver can’t share their gifts and passions fighting for a thriving Arizona,” Crews said in Vote Mama’s news release. 

But child care costs can still be a barrier to a parent who is elected to office. Mayes wrote in her  opinion that only campaign funds may be used for child care. Arizona law does not allow officeholders to use public funds for child care in Mayes’ interpretation.

“Dependent care does not fit the bill. No law or regulation requires officeholders to take care of dependents. It is not an official duty. Therefore, an officeholder who wishes to use officeholder funds to pay for dependent care would be unable to justify the expenditure by linking it to an official duty,” Mayes wrote.

Officeholders may specifically use public funds to “defray the costs of performing officeholder duties,” but an expenditure must defray the cost of a specific, identifiable duty. A claim that an expenditure would allow an officeholder to be present for their duties is too broad, according to Mayes.