No. Payment does not remove the need to assess and accurately disclose relevant immigration history.
Use the actual decision
Provide the notice rather than describing every refusal as equivalent. The legal significance depends on the facts and current process; do not promise that financial capacity resolves it.
Everything the official process describes apart from the payment: government vetting, admissibility to the United States, eligibility under the employment-based classification the program uses, and visa availability. Identify the single fact most likely to end the case — an old refusal, a criminal matter, a period of unlawful presence, or an unresolved question about identity — and examine it before paying anything. The first treats the payment as something the government provides, which reverses the flow entirely: the applicant pays, the U.S. government receives, and nothing is granted in the other direction except the immigration outcome itself. Because the program is administratively implemented and its terms may change, verify the current official description before relying on any of this, and take advice from a licensed U.S. immigration attorney. Because the programme operates through existing immigrant classifications, the general requirements of admissibility apply in the ordinary way, and an applicant with a history that raises admissibility questions should take advice before paying anything.