The Superior Electoral Court () released data on , last week, and this does not bring new news.
The numbers are known, but the disclosure puts the issue of this type of financing adopted since the 2018 election back on the agenda. An opportunity to renew questions about how, in return, they provide good services to the country that hires them.
The old story: the represented person is obliged to vote, but the representatives are not obliged to fulfill their duties and still legislate in their own cause. For example, amnesty for infractions by associations, expanding the use of party funds and relaxing rules such as . The big numbers: R$4.9 billion for campaigns, R$1.3 billion for the parties’ usual expenses and R$61 billion reserved for parliamentary amendments in the 2026 Union Budget. The amendments are included in this account because they work as parallel campaign financing.
Does the service provided justify all this money? Judging by the Poder Data survey released a few days ago, the population is not at all satisfied with what they pay to the parties. Only 10% positively evaluate the company’s work and 15% endorse the company’s performance.
While in the case of presidents, governors and mayors, performance evaluations can directly impact voting intentions, in the Legislative branch there is a dispersion of choices. That’s what would-be congressmen are counting on. They are betting precisely on the lack of connection between what is being paid by society and what is actually delivered by the elected representatives during their respective mandates exercised away from the eyes of the vote holders.
The district voting system, in which there is a direct link between representatives and those represented, would be the beginning of a change in the correlation of forces. But for this to happen, political reform would be necessary, about which much is said and nothing is done.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
