• thatOneGuy@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Technically, the equivalent would be you standing outside a polling place with a sign saying “I will give every adult in the area $500 if Candidate X wins”.

    Ostensibly, you could just be lying (just like Trump) - and that would probably be covered under your 1st Amendment rights.

    It’s stupid, but there is enough of a disconnect between action and reward that it might skirt past.

    • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 hours ago

      No, that’s not how that works.

      18 U.S.C. § 597 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 597.

      Whoever makes or offers to make an expenditure to any person, either to vote or withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any candidate; and

      Whoever solicits, accepts, or receives any such expenditure in consideration of his vote or the withholding of his vote—

      Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

      • melsaskca@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 hours ago

        That seems pretty straightforward. So the law is correct, it’s just useless because the system founded on these laws is broken.

      • thatOneGuy@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I should look forward to Trump getting charged with that, then?

        But more seriously, there would be countless lawyers happy to argue that a general statement such as “$500 to every adult in the county if John Smith wins” does not technically break that particular law because it’s not explicitly targeted at any one individual recipient, nor is it contingent on them participating in an election whatsoever.

        Just as I’m also sure there would be more than one sympathetic Trump-appointed judge to side with the defendant too.

        US laws mean nothing if they aren’t actively being followed.

  • glimse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 hours ago

    This is most r/nostupidquestions thing that has ever been asked here. It’s just bait.

  • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    9 hours ago

    It’s very different. One is “I will give YOU money if you vote for me” and the other is “I will give EVERYONE money if I win”. The main difference is that one is not discriminating against who people voted for. The first is buying votes, the second is a campaign similar to “I will retroactively lower taxes for this year if I win”, which I don’t think anyone would see as problematic but it’s exactly the same outcome as the one you’re finding problem with, i.e. give people money.

    It’s a stupid campaign because anyone with half a brain understand that he’s not going to do it and that that money would have to come from someplace else, but it’s still a campaign promise similar to any other promise politicians make to ask you to vote for them.

  • RandomHugs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I mean, There’s also the more direct approach if one wants to give out bribes in return for votes… Remember this? Tell me more about how amazing and just the Western Democracy is.

  • Artisian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Yes it is illegal for you to do that, as it would be for Trump. But no, Trumps proposed 5k checks to all adult citizens, as I understand it, is legal. I’m pretty disappointed in the other answers. A few relevant points.

    1. Remember the model for sending checks to folks: CARES. Both Biden and Trump have previously done this.
    2. Congress can legally amend and pass laws. Note that the law that makes bribing for votes illegal is not in the constitution, so it requires only the usual legal action to amend it.
    3. I note that the policy Trump proposed isn’t discriminatory on who you vote for; your hypothetical does. (I suspect this is irrelevant for the legality, but certainly helps the optics.)
  • VeryFrugal@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

    It is a very unfortunate situation, one that definitely affects 70 billion people. But please solve your own problems on your own. So far I’ve filtered out /Trump/i and still about 30% of the posts are about him.

  • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Yes.

    And even worse, we’ve seen it done by other presidents in recent memory, like when Biden promised a $2000 COVID aid check if the Dems won Georgia, which they did, and then the amount shrank to $1400.