Globo embraces the banner of private financing.
The newspaper owned by the Marinho brothers calls the ban a utopia: 'Off-the-books campaign contributions exist, they are detrimental because they disregard clear rules, but they are an element of politics. Preventing companies from legally allocating resources to campaigns will have the opposite effect to the ethics that are intended, with the consequent increase in underground channels for funding candidacies'; a request for review by Minister Gilmar Mendes stalled the vote on the matter in the Supreme Federal Court.
247 – The Globo newspaper, owned by the Marinho brothers, defended private campaign financing. According to the publication, "it is utopian to believe that, formally prohibited, legal entities, the largest sources of financing in political life, will allow themselves to be excluded from the game." Read:
False moralizing
The mixing of money and politics is problematic. This is due to the patrimonialism of politicians whose mandates are open doors for shady deals under the guise of inviolability, or to the loopholes of illegal campaign financing, a source of inequality in the struggle for representation.
This practice is not exclusive to Brazil. In other countries as well, illegal financing fuels political campaigns, including those of prominent figures on the international stage. German Chancellor Helmut Kohl was relegated to oblivion, despite being the statesman who reunified Germany, for receiving "unaccounted" funds. Jacques Chirac, in France, was denounced for corruption, and in the US, "under-the-table" payments tarnished the biography of Spiro Agnew, Nixon's vice president, and forced him to resign.
These are examples that are often raised as arguments against corporate contributions to party and candidate campaigns. As always, the discussion is distorted, starting from specific episodes to generalize the issue. The problem is not the presence of companies on legal donation lists. What must be combated is the lack of transparency, the weakness of control, oversight, and regulation mechanisms, in order to curb abuses. It is in improving these mechanisms that investment should be made.
Furthermore, it is utopian to believe that, formally prohibited, legal entities, the largest sources of financing for political life, will simply remain excluded from the game. On the contrary, what is disguised—intentionally or naively—as a moralizing action is, in reality, a powerful incentive for strengthening illegal contributions. Off-the-books campaign contributions exist, they are detrimental because they disregard clear rules, but they are an element of politics. Preventing companies from legally allocating resources to campaigns will have the opposite effect to the ethical approach intended, with the consequent increase in underground channels for funding candidacies.
In any case, the issue, for now but mistakenly, is virtually decided. Responding to the argument of the Brazilian Bar Association, the majority of the Supreme Court has already decided to prohibit legal entities from financing campaigns (there has not yet been a formal ruling, as the matter is under review). This may buy time for a more in-depth discussion.
It would now be up to Congress to reopen the issue. Not within the scope of a broad political reform, an opportunistic agenda of the PT (Workers' Party), which includes the proposal for public financing of campaigns as a complement to the prohibition on corporate financing. The problem is not the company spending on politics by choice, but the lack of means of control over the finances of public life.