Politics is about the distribution of power and money. So it comes as little surprise that many politicians campaign on the material benefits that citizens can expect if those candidates win. President Donald Trump has been no different in this respect. He has promised voters, among other things, a “DOGE dividend” using money saved by cutting federal jobs, rebates from tariff revenues, and a diversion of money currently used to subsidize health insurance companies directly to Americans. But his pledge to give US$5,000 to every U.S. citizen if Republicans retain majorities in the House and Senate in the November 2026 midterm elections had a different dimension. This offer wasn’t a rebate for taxes paid or a subsidy for an impacted constituency. Instead, it was tied to an electoral outcome. That brings it closer to vote buying, which raises concerns from a legal point of view. For this to actually happen, it needs congressional approval – and Republican legislators haven’t taken action. But Trump has yet to rescind the idea, which could cost over $1 trillion. So it’s time to ask whether it could make a difference in the midterms, where margins are tight in key races. I’m a political scientist who has studied for the past decade vote buying in countries around the world. Cash for votes may seem like a straightforward way to win support, but my research shows that offering people money rarely changes their vote. The practice dates back to ancient Rome and was a staple of…
*This content (including text, artwork, graphics, photography, and video) was provided by the third party(ies) as referenced above. Any rights or other content questions or inquiries should be directed to such third-party provider(s).
