Why is U.S. President Donald Trump’s promise to send money to Americans if the Republican Party gets a majority in this fall’s midterm elections not subject to litigation and public outcry? Under Trump’s leadership, the American government has become a democracy in name only.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 21, 2026.

OTTAWA—Bribery. Banana Republic. The United States president promises $5,000 to every adult in the country if his party wins a majority in this fall’s midterm elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate.

This sounds like something you would expect in a country that operates as a presidential dictatorship. Russia, for example.

But in this case, U.S. President Donald Trump has offered the political buyout that will cost the treasury more than US$1-trillion.

What is shocking is that the American public is not even challenging the legality of this offer. There are dozens of complaints about the cost and the irresponsibility of the offer. But nothing about the legality.

Since when can a leader of a country offer payment to influence the vote? That is a pure and simple bribe.

But the American people seem so locked in their alleged exceptionalism that they don’t even question the decision of the supreme leader to offer a bribe.

Former U.S. president Bill Clinton is involved with The Bluebill, a messaging app that deposits daily news into the inboxes of any interested party.

It obviously targets the faux-pas from the president and ancillary Republican problems. But when Trump announced the payoff, the response did not involve a deep dive into how this constitutes a bribe.

Instead, the focus was on whether the payment would or could be made. The Bluebill focuses on previous Trump cash payout promises that failed to be delivered. One was a so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” dividend which was supposed to distribute $2,000 cash to the same adults. The administration claimed that the cheques could be funded directly by tariffs, yet Treasury officials claimed otherwise. That payment could only be made through formal legislation and congressional approval. The cost of that payout was determined to be US$1.2-trillion, which exceeded the actual amount that was recovered by the tariffs.

Bluebill claims that the proposed payout is facing the same financial hurdles, so the argument is dependent upon the legal status of the payout.

But what about the question that this payout is directly tied to an attempt to influence voters. Why is not that a subject of litigation and public outcry?

In the same way that most Americans appear to be okay with their president receiving a jumbo jet as a gift from a foreign country, it appears to be okay for citizens to be paid for their vote.

How can a country claim to be a democracy when its leadership is bent on bribing voters in advance of the November midterms?

Obviously, the cost of the payout should be of concern to those Americans who are concerned about the state of the U.S. economy.

The run on gold and the state of the U.S dollar is of concern to countries who are holding American debt. If that currency sinks, the rest of the world will move away from buying the American dollar.

The presidential decision to offer the bribe does reduce international trust. When a bribe is offered by the president, it can only send waves of concern around the world.

And that concern will boomerang to the level of confidence people should have—or not—in the strength of the American dollar as a currency haven.

There will be ramifications, and the issue of financial distress will play a role in the outcome of the midterm elections.

But when a citizen is offered $5,000 for their vote, how can anyone reasonably conclude that this will not influence the election outcome?

If you couple the bribe with the ridiculous amounts of money that are being spent in congressional races across the country, there is only one conclusion you can come to.

Under Trump’s leadership, the American government has become a democracy in name only.

According to Open Secrets, an electoral spending tracker organization, the total cost of spending in the 2024 congressional election was US$9.5-billion. As for the presidential race, that spending level was US$5.3-billion.

The total for both is in the neighbourhood of US$15-billion. Compare that to Canada. The cost of riding campaigns, equivalent to congressional races, was $59.8-million. That represents less than one per cent of the American spending envelope.

As for the national leadership, the Canadian equivalent of presidential spending, was $96.1-million, with $61.5-million of that spent on advertising. Zero dollars were spent on vote buying. The prime ministerial campaign spending was 1.8 per cent of the amount spend to elect the American president.

Money has replaced democracy in the U.S.A.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.