1. United States
2. Iowa
3. Letter

Should the Presidency Come With a Price Tag on Your Vote? I am asking you to call for a formal review of President Trump's September 9 pledge to send every adult American a $5,000 payment if — and only if — Republicans keep control of the House and Senate, and to publicly state that no federal payment should ever be conditioned on how an election turns out. At the GOP's midterm convention in Dallas on Wednesday, President Trump told the crowd, "Because of our tremendous strength and success economically, I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000" — but only if Republicans hold both chambers this November. He offered no funding source and no payment mechanism for roughly 270 million eligible adults. Independent estimates, drawing on Census data, put the cost at $1 trillion or more, a sum that would dwarf current tariff revenue. This is the second unfunded "dividend" pledge in ten months: a nearly identical $2,000 promise in November 2025 never materialized because no plan or appropriation ever followed. Federal law already speaks directly to this. Under 18 U.S.C. § 597, it is a federal offense to offer an expenditure to a person for voting, withholding a vote, or voting for or against a candidate. That statute exists because a functioning democracy depends on votes that are freely given, not purchased with public money. Election-law analysts across the political spectrum have raised the same flag here — not as a partisan talking point, but because the statute makes no exception for who benefits. This is what corruption looks like when it's said out loud instead of hidden: a sitting president using the machinery of the federal government as a campaign incentive, dangling public money he has no authority to spend, contingent on the public voting the "right" way. Whether or not it's ever prosecuted, it teaches something corrosive — that public office comes with the power to bribe the public that granted it, as long as you're brazen enough to say the quiet part on stage. That's the kind of precedent that outlasts any one election, and it should alarm anyone who cares about honest government, regardless of party. I am asking you to: 1 Call on the Department of Justice's Public Integrity Section and the Federal Election Commission to formally assess whether this pledge, and the pattern of similar election-timed promises, implicates federal law against using expenditures to influence voting. 2 Support an oversight hearing in the House Administration Committee or Senate Rules Committee examining the legality and fiscal impact of election-conditioned payment promises. 3 Issue a public statement making clear that no federal payment should ever be conditioned on which party wins an election, regardless of who makes the promise. A president can promise a lot of things from a convention stage. But a check that only clears if his party wins isn't a policy proposal — it's a bribe with the government's name on it, and I'm asking you to say so plainly. Thank you for representing the people who elected you, not the ones who can be bought.