Denied access to the list of representatives of class entities and civil society institutions of a national nature who were accredited to access the building throughout 2025. These are lobbyists, that is, people who represent the interests of companies or public officials in the .
The Chamber justified the denial with the argument that disclosure would be prevented by internal “institutional security” criteria and could violate the LGPD ().
A Sheet appealed, but the return of the presidency, led by deputy (-PB), maintained the understanding.
“The wide publication of these data, in the required form, may imply vulnerabilities to institutional security and, furthermore, violate the principles of security, prevention and accountability [da LGPD]”, argues the presidency.
The request could only be granted when it refers to specific cases, that is, to confirm whether a certain lobbyist or entity is accredited at the Chamber.
A Sheet also requested, in another request, the list of representatives of a specific entity, but access was denied.
The requests were made through the LAI (Access to Information Law), which determines the “protection of the preponderant public and general interest” as a criterion that allows the disclosure of personal information even without the consent of the data owners. The law considers the publication of information as a rule and secrecy as an exception.
The Chamber stated, via the press office, that “the public exposure of lists containing personal data of different people is precisely what the legislation [LAI e LGPD] seeks to avoid.” “The indiscriminate disclosure of the database has the potential to violate the rights of registered data holders.”
The report also questioned when the information would become available, since the LAI provides that information classified as confidential may be publicized after a certain period, but the House said that the information was not classified as confidential, only denied, and therefore there would be no deadline.
When asked via advice about the decision on the appeal, Motta did not respond.
For lawyer Pedro Saliba, coordinator of Asymmetries and Power at Data Privacy Brasil, “the denial of access to data does not correspond to the adequate interpretation of data protection precepts”. “In this scenario, there would be no risk to institutional vulnerability, nor to intimacy and privacy, since the public interest prospers.”
Saliba assesses that the information is of “journalistic and academic interest, as it reveals power relations between social groups and legislative deliberation”.
The fact that representatives are accredited allows them to enter without informing their destination at the entrances. Therefore, there is no record of the lobbyists’ movements.
The credential gives access to public areas and offices, but does not allow entry to the “Ulysses Guimarães plenary session or other private areas of deputies”, according to the Chamber.
Accessing the visitor entry register is one of the few ways backed by official documents for the press and society to monitor the actions of company representatives in Congress.
The Federal Government denies disclosing the data, arguing that it is “personal information”.
Denying access to data also prevents transparency about which companies have, through associations, representatives with free access. It is common for people who work in companies to be representatives of associations, and acting on behalf of the collective can be mixed with private activity.
The denial also prevents inspection of whether those accredited actually meet the defined criteria. THE Sheet confirmed through the Access to Information Law, for example, that between April 2019 and February 2021, lobbyist Kaliana Kalache, director of public policies at Meta, was accredited in the Chamber as a representative of Facebook.
However, at least since January 1999, there has been no provision for accreditation for company representatives in the Chamber. Asked how the credential was obtained, Meta said it would not comment. The Chamber did not respond to the specific question and said that “there is no company accredited by the House”.
Lobbying as an interest representation activity is not illegal in Brazil, but it is not regulated.
For Juliana Sakai, executive director of Transparência Brasil, the denial based on generic justifications, such as security, “is clearly illegal”. “It is not in line with the public interest precisely to know with whom politicians and their offices are discussing proposals for the country”, he explains.
She assesses that keeping information confidential serves both lobbyists and parliamentarians who respond to private demands to the detriment of the general benefit to society.
