The Spire

Kimberly Von Randow ‘28

Opinions Editor

Presidents have enormous influence over political debate, but there should be limits to how that influence is used during elections. I believe one of those limits should be clear: presidents should not promise Americans money in connection with the electoral success of their political party.

That is why I disagree with Donald Trump’s recent proposal to give Americans $5,000 if Republicans win the midterm elections. However, I also disagree with Joe Biden’s promise during the 2020 election cycle to support $2,000 stimulus payments if Democrats won the two Georgia Senate races. My objection is not about which party made the promise, but the precedent created when a president connects a financial benefit to an election outcome.

There is an important distinction between governments providing financial assistance and politicians using the prospect of financial assistance as part of an electoral appeal. For millions of Americans already struggling with the rising costs of housing, food, healthcare, and everyday necessities, using the promise of thousands of dollars to influence the political conversation can feel particularly predatory, because it takes advantage of genuine financial insecurity for electoral gain.

Governments sometimes need to provide citizens with financial support during economic crises, and there can be legitimate policy reasons for doing so. But those programs should be debated and justified as public policy, not presented as something voters will receive if a particular party wins an election.

This distinction matters because elections are supposed to give citizens the opportunity to choose between competing ideas and representatives. When politicians promise thousands of dollars in connection with their party winning, there is a risk that the focus shifts away from those issues and toward the simple question of “What will I personally gain if this party wins?”

Some may argue that there is nothing wrong with promising voters a policy that benefits them financially. After all, politicians campaign on tax cuts, welfare programs, healthcare spending and other policies that have direct financial consequences for citizens. That is a fair point. A government policy should not automatically be considered improper simply because it benefits voters financially.

But I believe there is a meaningful difference between explaining the merits of a proposed policy and effectively presenting money as a reward associated with an election victory. The latter risks encouraging a political culture in which parties compete over what they can promise voters personally, rather than over what they believe is best for the country.

This is why I apply the same standard to both Trump and Biden, and would do so to any American president. I do not think it is acceptable because I support one president and unacceptable because I oppose another. If the principle is that elections should not be treated as transactions, then that principle should apply regardless of who occupies the White House.

This is not necessarily an argument that either president’s conduct was legally bribery. Election law draws important distinctions between offering money directly in exchange for an individual’s vote and promising a government benefit contingent on an election result. Those legal questions should be left to the appropriate authorities. My concern is ultimately a democratic one. A citizen’s vote should never feel like something that comes with a price tag. Political leaders should persuade Americans through their ideas, policies, and records—not by making the outcome of an election feel like a financial reward for choosing their side.

That standard should apply to every president, every party and every election.