Mendes mocks the #GiveBackGilmar campaign and ignores the deadline.

247 - Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Gilmar Mendes said this Friday (24), in São Paulo, that he found it "funny" that there had been demonstrations – inside and outside social networks – about the more than 12 months that he has been dealing with the request for review of the direct action of unconstitutionality (Adin) that deals with donations from private companies to electoral campaigns. The initiative, dubbed on the internet as "#DevolveGilmar", has even yielded in-person demonstrations to Mendes, such as the cake delivered by students in Bahia, last week, when the process completed one year with the magistrate.

“I’m so used to it. I find it funny!” he said. “If we were afraid of that, we couldn’t be judges, because nowadays everyone has an opinion on every issue,” he downplayed.

According to the minister, he will return the case to the full court "later this year," but did not specify a date. "It is our ethos, our mission, sometimes to contradict your opinion," he stated.

“All the offices are very busy, and I am prioritizing the issue of drug decriminalization – I hope to release my vote on it next week, or the week after,” he said. “Also under my analysis is the issue of releasing prisoners from closed to semi-open regimes in case of a lack of space in the prison system: should they be released?” he argued.

Regarding the repercussions of the time spent on the request for review of the case, Mendes justified that it exists because "there is a lot of confusion and a lot of misinformed people" about the matter.

“This issue has gained significant political importance because some groups saw this action as the solution to their desires; they wanted the Supreme Court to impose public financing and induce list voting, or for the Supreme Court to carry out the political reform that they cannot achieve in Congress,” he complained, without naming names. “That is not the role of the Supreme Court, and before discussing what the financing model will be, we must know what the electoral system will be – I will determine this by vote. Will we have list voting? District voting? Mixed campaign financing? Or will we continue with the model we have now? These are difficult issues,” declared the magistrate, for whom “there was an attempt to make the Supreme Court a bit of a ‘front’ in this process.”

Mendes did not express a value judgment on the proposal for public financing of campaigns, but indirectly cited the tripling of the party fund budget that occurred this week. “Look at people's reaction today to public financing and this tripling of party fund spending – it's public money. And look how indignant people are about this simple solution,” he opined. “We have elections with many candidates, at all levels; when you think about a municipal election next year, for example, there are around 500 candidates. How are we going to finance all of that? Only through public funding? Does that mean we're going to accept clandestine private donations? Or do we believe that these people won't campaign with some kind of resource?” he suggested.