President Donald Trump has proposed offering $5,000 to every U.S. citizen if Republicans retain majorities in the House and Senate in the November 2026 midterm elections. This offer is tied to an electoral outcome rather than a rebate for taxes paid or a subsidy for an impacted constituency. The proposal has raised concerns from a legal perspective, as it brings it closer to vote buying.
Trump has not rescinded the idea, which could cost over $1 trillion. However, it requires congressional approval, and Republican legislators have not taken action. The proposal has sparked questions about its potential impact on the midterms, where margins are tight in key races.
Political scientist Kenneth Greene, who has studied vote buying in countries around the world, notes that offering people money rarely changes their vote. His research shows that vote-buying attempts across 10 countries and 57 elections around the world have had no detectable influence. Voters make their choices based on considerations such as their own partisanship, issue preferences, the performance of the incumbent party, and the perceived competence of the candidates.
Greene explains that for vote buying to work, the value of the benefits people receive must outweigh the factors pushing them toward an opposing party. However, very few voters in any electorate are truly indifferent. As long as those factors together outweigh the value of the benefits that people would receive to switch, vote buying fails.
Greene also highlights the importance of competition in elections. Local competition creates vigorous campaigns that amp up partisan sentiments. These sentiments influence voters’ responses to electoral gifts. If you already like the political machine, you interpret its gifts as a sign that it cares about your welfare. But if you strongly identify with an opposing party, you interpret gifts as an attempt to manipulate your vote and deprive you of basic political rights.
