In his keynote speech Until the Republican midterm convention on September 9, 2026. President Donald Trump has promised If Republicans retain their majority in Congress in November, he Authorize a $5,000 payment to every American adult.
Trump’s proposal appears to violate federal law. Crime to pay for voting.
After President Trump’s speech, Posted by political commentator Sam Stein Regarding X: “Trump is openly bribing people to vote Republican. $5,000 per person if Republicans control the House and Senate?”
Stein is not the only one to mention bribery. Lisa Gilbert, co-chair of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said: After President Trump’s speech, he issued the following statement:: “Trump is trying to bribe voters with false promises of cash to help his party win elections, even though he knows he can’t do it.”
However, as scholar of political and legal rhetoricI think it’s worth further considering whether the president’s statements and promises violate the law.
american tradition
paying voters to support a particular candidate or promising them a government job in exchange for their vote; has a long history In the US. It was a standard of machine politics in large cities since the late 19th century.
political scientist Simeon Nichter argues It would be better to explain this kind of behavior as an example of “vote buying.” He points out: “Observers in various U.S. cities have complained that some politicians are using ‘street money’ – small, unreported cash payments ostensibly used for legitimate vote-getting activities such as campaigning and voter transportation – as direct payments for turnout.”
What Nichter described has been revived in our time.
Start your day with important news from the salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.
recollection Elon Musk’s efforts to ensure Republican victory In the 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court election. He spent millions of dollars on that effort. Associated Press reportedoffered “$1 million to anyone who voted in the Supreme Court election” to encourage voting.
In July 2026, the Wisconsin State Board of Elections I found enough evidence to refer to Citizens have complained about Musk’s actions to the district attorney, who, according to the Associated Press, “can choose whether to pursue criminal charges for violating state law against electioneering.”
A month later, state prosecutors said they could Can’t prove Musk guilty beyond a reasonable doubt And no charges will be filed.
federal law
Because state and federal laws differ, Trump’s $5,000 promise cannot be extrapolated from Wisconsin’s decision.
Two provisions of federal law regarding vote buying adopted by parliament Both treated the act as a form of election interference.
first read as follows: “Any person who makes or offers to make an expenditure to any person to vote or withhold a vote, or to vote for or against a candidate, and who requests, accepts, or receives any such expenditure in consideration of his vote or withholding of a vote, shall be fined or imprisoned under this title, or both.”
second Prohibit provision of government benefits “To any person as compensation, benefit, or reward for any political activity or for supporting or opposing any candidate or political party in connection with election to any political office.”
Both provisions focus on the use of money or the promise of benefits to induce individuals to vote a certain way.
But Mr. Trump did not make an offer to any particular voter or group of voters. And unlike Musk, he was acting as a public figure. The president’s promise was aimed at all voters, not just those who voted Republican.
Former federal prosecutor John Day likened Trump’s “dividends” to: Pledge to deliver tax cuts. “A promise to cut taxes may give voters an economic reason to support a candidate, but that alone does not make the promise a bribe,” Day told The New York Times.
Supreme Court precedent
1982 Supreme Court case Brown v. Hartlage examined the legitimacy of politicians Promise economic benefits to voters. It turns out there is nothing wrong with this practice as long as benefits are not provided in return to specific voters.
Justice William Brennan wrote for the unanimous court that political candidates “have a First Amendment right, no less than anyone else, to participate in the discussion of public issues and to vigorously and vigorously advocate for their election and that of other candidates.”
In his view, that right includes speaking out about the economic benefits that voters might receive if a candidate or party wins an election, as long as it is done “in public and subject to criticism by political opponents and monitoring by voters.” Brennan added that such statements are different from “corrupt private agreements or inducements, which have historically been recognized as not protected by the First Amendment.”
The Hartlage decision remains a precedent that is still applicable today.
However, one year after the court’s decision, argued legal scholars Peter Alanson and Kenneth Shepsle. The Supreme Court’s decision counters several lower court decisions that have treated the kind of promises recognized by the high court as “akin to bribes that divert the public’s attention from ‘proper’ public policy issues.”
President Trump may view the question of whether Republicans can maintain control of Congress as just such an issue.
beyond legality
No matter what President Trump thinks, critics have observed In Trump’s world, relationships are transactional. What matters is the transaction, not the derogation of the values and values it promotes. The significance of President Trump’s cash offer, therefore, goes beyond the legal question of whether it was bribery, vote buying, or a legitimate political promise.
It is worth paying attention to the pros and cons of a transactional approach to politics and how it affects the nature of American political life and Americans’ worldview.
One of Trump’s critics former presidential speechwriter Peter Wehnerdescribes what he calls “the great civil danger posed by Donald Trump.” “His habits of mind become our habits of mind. His code of conduct becomes ours.”
Whether he’s right or not, Mr. Wehner points Americans to the realm beyond the law as the appropriate place to evaluate a president’s promises.playing card dividend”
austin surrattWilliam Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law and Political Science; amherst college
This article is republished from conversation Under Creative Commons License. please read original article.
read more
About this topic
let siteUrl=”
let captchaKey = ‘6LckLQkrAAAAABD30EsnOQxmtgweb-aPZojeUU3v’;
window.fbAsyncInit = function() {
FB.init({
appId : ‘134091381200152’,
cookie : true,
xfbml : true,
version : ‘v21.0’
});
FB.AppEvents.logPageView();
};
(function(d, s, id){
var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)(0);
if (d.getElementById(id)) {return;}
js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;
js.src = ”
fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);
}(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));