In an effort to win back the votes of the senators who have noted their opposition to the Graham-Cassidy health care bill, several revisions have allegedly been made.

According to Politico, which claims to have a copy of the revised bill, Graham-Cassidy 2.0 “includes provisions that would steer more federal funding to Alaska, Arizona and Kentucky. All three are home states of senators representing pivotal GOP swing votes who either have opposed or expressed concerns with the bill — John McCain, Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski.”

…the bill's authors now project increases in federal funding for Arizona (14%), Kentucky (4%) and Alaska (3%), which would have seen declines in funding under the previous version, according to a leaked analysis from Trump's health department. In particular, Murkowski's home state would uniquely benefit from Sec. 129, which allows the state with the highest separate poverty guideline — Alaska — to receive a 25% hike in federal matching funds for Medicaid.

Is this bribery? It's impossible to say for sure, but Merriam-Webster seems to think so: “[A bribe]: money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust.”

If Politico’s copy of the bill is accurate, this is a preposterous gambit. One of Senator Paul’s primary objections to the bill is that is simply “reshuffles” money rather than actually cutting spending.

Whoever came up with this plan seems to be confusing Senator Paul with Scrooge McDuck — but something tells me that Paul won't be diving into his money vault with that extra 4% funding.

The increase doesn't seem to address Senator John McCain’s concerns either, which related to the bill’s unknowns (the CBO score), as well as bipartisanship.

This reeks of desperation.

The Daily Wire reached out to Senators Paul and McCain for comment. Paul’s communications director, Sergio Gor, told us that the senator cannot comment at this time. Instead, he directed us to watch a press conference being held Monday afternoon.

McCain’s team did not get back to us as of publication.