Public Fund: Senate gives with one hand and takes away with the other.

Years late, and after much has been spilled, Congress approved public campaign financing, creating a fund that is already being criticized for its usual hypocrisy: we're going to spend money on campaigns that could finance health, education, housing, etc. Nonsense from those who want the return of corporate financing, which always allows for partial reimbursement of donations and is a wide-open door for corruption. But, as could be expected, at the last minute they invented a way to favor the wealthiest candidates, with the Senate suppressing the article that imposed limits on self-financing. If the rich can spend as much as they want, and they are usually businessmen, it's a case of corporate self-financing.

It was the Senate that made the approval of public campaign financing possible, passing a bill in record time after the Chamber of Deputies became entangled in a deadlock on the matter. But it was the Senate that, after giving with one hand, took away with the other, by allowing unlimited self-financing.

The public fund was created with the decisive support, from the left, of the PT, PCdoB, and PDT parties, which have always defended the measure. On the center-right, it was supported by the PMDB, PP, DEM, PTB, and PSD parties, which, although they had previously opposed the proposal, after falling into the trap created by private donations, yielded to the necessity of the public fund. The PSDB remained neutral. The noise will come from parties that voted against it: Rede, PEN, PSOL, PV, PPS, PHS, PRB, PSB, and PR. The usual refrain will be that the money destined for the electoral financing fund will be taken from education, health, housing, and other public policies. Nonsense. First, because the fund has defined sources. Its resources will come from parliamentary amendments and compensation to broadcasting stations for airing "free" election time. Second, because there has always been a lack of money for education, health, and other services, while companies poured money into their candidates. Once elected, they were always guaranteed contracts with the state, usually with inflated prices that diverted resources that could have been used for other purposes, benefiting the population. What this hypocrisy hides, in most cases, is a longing for the collusion between parties and companies in financing campaigns.

Another important virtue of public funding is the democratization of access to politics, allowing people from economically weaker backgrounds, without access to the private funders of the past, to now compete for elected office at all three levels of political representation. But this was compromised by the Senate with today's vote, by removing the limit on self-financing. With the wealthy now free to run million-dollar campaigns, using their own resources or even those donated under the table, poor candidates will once again lose competitiveness in the race.

Certainly, some party will end up taking the matter to court, leaving the possibility, which I find unlikely, of the TSE (Superior Electoral Court) or the STF (Supreme Federal Court) restoring the limit. They would literally be interfering with a law approved by Congress.

Things don't work that way here. Just when we think we've taken a step forward, we discover we've taken a step back.