Source: https://data.moneypoliticstransparency.org/countries/BR/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 04:27:48+00:00

Document:
Brazil, in law and in practice, provides a good deal of direct public funding to parties during campaigns. Indirect funding, in the form of free access to advertising on public and private media, is equitably provided to both parties and candidates. Non-financial state resources, in spite of a ban on their use during campaigns, are often deployed for electoral gain. With the exception of cash donations, most forms of contribution are subject to a limit, but expenditure is essentially uncapped, as parties are supposed to set and adhere to their own unique spending limits. This leads to a situation in which parties stipulate extremely high spending limits that enable huge amounts of campaign expenditures. Limits on contributions are often contravened in practice. In law, parties are subject to extensive reporting requirements, and candidates are supposed to report detailed information during campaigns. In practice, political actors often fail to comply with these requirements, and many reports omit contributions. Submitted reports are made available online, but not all are in standardized, machine readable formats. Violations of political finance laws, including vote buying, were frequent during the 2010 elections. The independent activities of third party actors are not regulated, and many such organizations actively participate in campaigning. The Superior Electoral Court (TSE) is charged with monitoring and enforcing political finance laws, and in practice, the TSE is mostly independent, with appointments made based on merit. It has limited capacity due to the scope of its work, but still carries out investigations into violations, and imposes sanctions on violators. However, only some of these sanctions are complied with, and violations continue to occur.
According to the Political Parties' Law 9.096 (Art. 38), political parties receive money from a public fund called “Fundo Partidário” (Party Fund), and they use most of it to finance their candidates during elections (the money is also used to maintain the party itself). Candidates do not receive funding directly.
The same regulations govern all elections in Brazil: Presidential, National Congress, Gubernatorial, States and Federal District Parliaments, Mayors and City Councils.
The “Party Fund” (public money given to parties and used by them to finance their candidates) has a very transparent and equitable mechanism. According to the Political Parties' Law 9.096 (Art. 41-A), it works as follows: 5% of the money is separated for distribution, in equal shares, to all parties who have registered their statutes in the Superior Electoral Court; and the remaining 95% is distributed to them at the proportion of the votes obtained in the last general election for the Chamber of Deputies. The National Treasury deposits monthly apportionments, and each party’s share is published on the oversight authority’s website (www.tse.jus.br), according to the Political Parties' Law 9.096, Art. 40.
The air time on TV and radio (paid by the state via tax compensations) is similarly divided: 1/3 is separated for equal distribution to all parties; the remaining 2/3 is distributed at the proportion of the number of representatives in the last general election for the Chamber of Deputies (Elections Law - 9.504, Art. 47).
Other relevant source: Parties’ monthly installments per year. Link: http://www.tse.jus.br/partidos/fundo-partidario (Click in “Distribuição em 2014” and/or “Distribuição em anos anteriores” for previews years).
In practice, the mechanism to determine direct public funding for electoral campaigns is indeed transparent, equitable and consistently applied: 1) The resources for the fund itself are guaranteed by law -- there is no risk of the state running out of money and not allocating funds for parties in a given year; 2) there are no exceptions, and each party receives their share according to the law.
"I do not know any case of problems with allocation of the Party Fund. The legislation is very well defined, specially when compared to other countries, where sometimes not even the whole amount is defined by law", says Bruno Speck, professor at University of Sao Paulo.
There are no news regarding misallocation or exceptions made for specific parties. According to a news article published by Contas Abertas, a Brazilian watchdog group that scrutinizes public budgets, everything is distributed according to the law.
Even newly-created parties are entitled to receive money from the Party Fund, as shows a news article published at O Estado S.Paulo, one of Brazil's most important newspapers.
As explained in indicators 1 and 2, no public funding is distributed to candidates.
Bruno Wilhelm Speck, professor at University of Sao Paulo and specialist in political financing. Date of the interview: August 1st 2014.
The information is publicly available less than one month after disbursement, at the Superior Electoral Court's website. For instance: the money disbursed in the beginning of August is already published by August 26th.
Parties’ monthly installments per year: Link: http://www.tse.jus.br/partidos/fundo-partidario (Click in “Distribuição em 2014” and/or “Distribuição em anos anteriores” for previews years).
Claudio Weber Abramo, head of Transparencia Brasil, a nonprofit watchdog group that fights corruption; Date of the interview: July 30th 2014.
Use of state resources in favor of candidates or parties is strictly prohibited. According to the Elections Law, public agents are forbidden to: “I) transfer or use, for the benefit of a candidate, political party or coalition, movable or immovable property belonging to the direct or indirect administration at the Federal, State, Federal District, Territory or Municipality government levels, except for holding party Conventions"; "II) II - use materials or services paid for by Governments or Legislative Houses that exceed the prerogatives enshrined in the regulations and standards of the bodies that compose them"; "III - allocate public servants or employees of the direct or indirect administration of the Executive Branch at the federal, state or municipal levels, (or use such civil servant or employee's services) to work for electoral campaign committees of a candidate, political party or coalition during normal business hours, except whether the civil servant or employee is on leave from his/her position"; "IV - make or allow promotional use of the free distribution of goods and services of social nature paid or subsidized by the Government in favor of a candidate, political party or coalition"; "V - appoint, hire or otherwise admit, dismiss without cause, remove or retroactively alter advantages or otherwise hinder or prevent functional exercise, and also, ex officio, remove, transfer or dismiss a public servant in the election district during the three months that precede the inauguration of those elected and until such inauguration, under penalty of nullity of the right to take office” (with some exceptions)". "VI - in the three months preceding the election: a) conduct voluntary transfers of federal funds to states and municipalities, and from states to municipalities, under penalty of nullity under the law, except for the resources earmarked to meet preexisting formal obligation to perform ongoing works or services with prefixed schedules, as well as those intended to meet public emergency and calamity situations; b) with the exception of advertising of products and services that have market competition, authorize institutional advertising of acts, programs, public works, services and campaigns by federal, state or municipal public agencies or by indirect administration entities, except in cases of serious and urgent public need thus recognized by the Electoral Justice; c) make pronouncements on radio and television stations outside of free electoral publicity time, except when considered, at the discretion of the Electoral Court, an urgent, relevant and characteristic matter of government functions"; "VII - realize expenses with advertising for federal, state or municipal agencies or their indirect administration entities during the term fixed in the previous section which exceed the average spending in the three years preceding the election or the last year before the election. VIII - to conduct a general review, within the jurisdiction of the election, of the remuneration earned by civil servants which exceeds the recovery of losses made throughout the election year, beginning on the deadline established in Article 7 of this Law and until inauguration of those elected."
There is evidence of the use of state resources in favor of political parties and individual candidates' electoral campaigns.
Since no entity collects this kind of data, it is not possible to provide the exact number of lawsuits or impeachments caused by the ilegal use of state resources. However, according to the Regional Electoral Court of the state of Sao Paulo eight mayors were impeached after the last municipal elections (2012) due to the use of state resources in electoral campaigns (see attached file). There are 645 cities in Sao Paulo, which means that more than 1% of mayors were impeached for that reason. This sort of issue crops up all over Brazil. In the South region, for instance, there are news about city counselors impeached for that reason (see sources). In the Southeast, North and Northeast regions, several news articles report the impeachment of small cities' mayors for using state resources.
According to Silvana Batini, the misuse of state resources during elections occur in both national and subnational levels, but the situation is worst in the cities, since they have less infrastructure to enforce the law and curb this kind of behavior.
The Elections Attorney José Alfredo Silva says the same in a news article (see sources). "What worries me the most is the situation in municipalities, because there is no oversight by the press, as happens in the capital of the state. There is no exposure. I worry about that habit of supporting party allies and political godfathers". He adds this, regarding the 2012 elections (for mayors and city councilors): "We saw sad episodes in the 2012 election of using government resources in favor of candidates trying re-election or in favor of political allies. I fear this may happen again this year , even in smaller scale, to support a particular candidate, a parliamentary that supports the region. I think we should remain attentive to that." Politicians misuse state resources for their own benefit also during national elections In Rio de Janeiro, several state representatives running for reelection in 2014 are accused of using social centers during 2010's elections (last national elections) to gain votes. Two candidates for state governments in 2014's elections were impeached por using state resources in previous mandates as governors trying reelection: Cassio Cunha Lima, from the state of Paraiba (Northeast of Brazil), and Marcelo Miranda, from the state of Tocantins (Central region of Brazil). Both of them commited the crime in the 2006's elections, were impeached in 2009 and are trying to be reelected in 2014.
There are news articles about the use of state resources by the president Dilma Rousseff, who seeks reelection in 2014's elections. According to a news article published at Folha de S.Paulo, government officials are being gathered told to help Dilma with her campaign. Also according to the article, though, officials were told to not use state resources (such as cars) in the campaigning.
Peer reviewer comment: Agree. In the 2014 elections, president Dilma Rousseff, of the Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT, Worker's Party), up for reelection, was accused of using the mail services (Correios) in an illegal manner. 4,8 million campaign pamphlets were distributed without an official stamp that would indicate how many pamphlets actually reached citizens – this, according to lawyers interviewed by journalists (see links 1 and 2 below), constitutes, at the very least, an administrative irregularity and may harm political competition. I sincerely doubt, however, that this will make a dent in the upcoming October 5 elections.
President Rousseff has also been accused of using the presidential plane (equivalent to Air Force One) to carry out campaign events. Article 76 of the Electoral Law mandates that her campaign should pay for the use of the plane, which might occur after the election takes place (see link 3).
Gubernatorial candidate Geraldo Alckmin (PSDB) in São Paulo is also being accused, in these 2014 elections, of illegal use of state resources. Alckmin illegaly inaugurated public works in July 2014 (see link 4).
Interview: Silvana Batini, appellate federal prosecutor and professor of electoral law at FGV. Date of the interview: August 14th 2014.
According to sections 47 and 99 of the Elections Law, all registered political parties and candidates have access to free air time for electoral campaigns, and the slots are distributed in a transparent and equitable way.
Radio stations, television networks and pay-TV broadcasters have to reserve slots during the forty-five days prior to two days before the election for network-wide advertising of the free electoral publicity. The slots are distributed in the following manner: 1/3 is separated for distribution to all registered parties, and 2/3 is distributed at the proportion of the number of Representatives at the Chamber of Deputies. The air time both on the TV and on the radio is free for parties and candidates, but paid by the state via tax benefits given to stations, networks, and broadcasters.
Radio stations, television networks and pay-TV broadcasters have to reserve slots during the forty-five days prior to two days before the election for network-wide advertising of the free electoral publicity. The slots are distributed in the following manner: 1/3 is separated for distribution to all registered parties, and 2/3 is distributed at the proportion of the number of Representatives at the Chamber of Deputies. The air time both on the TV and on the radio is free for parties and candidates, but paid by the state via tax benefits given to stations, networks, and broadcasters. Sources demonstrate that the mandates of the law are strictly followed in practice.
"In practice, the free access to air time is indeed calculated according to the criteria established in the Electoral Law", says the lawyer Stella Santo, who has been working as a lawyer to many Workers' Party (PT)'s electoral campaigns. "If the calculation is somehow wrong, the aggrieved party can make a claim. There is no way of not meeting the standards set by law here."
According to the Superior Electoral Court (TSE), the calculation for distribution of time between parties and coalitions is made by a software developed by the TSE itself and adopted by all Regional Electoral Courts.
There are no instances from within the period of study of parties or candidates complaining about the slot distribution, which is made objectively, with the participation of all the involved actors and widely published on the news, as shown by the fashion in which the sitting president will receive twice as much air time as her challengers in the upcoming presidential elections.
Peer reviewer comment: Agree. In Brazil, there is a big problem regarding the use of TV and radio concessions/licenses by politicians. According to the website "Donos da Mídia", 271 brazilian politicians are owners of TV or radio stations. This means that, during municipal elections especially, they are able to use their media outlets in order to campaign. In federal elections, this means that mayors, state deputies and federal deputies might also use this resource. This has been documented by scholar Venício Lima. However, there are no such examples from within the period of study, nor is there clear evidence that the situation described by the researcher above is incorrect.
In the 2014 elections, at least in the state of São Paulo, nothing has been written about this to my knowledge.
Interview: Stella Santo, lawyer with experience working at PT (Workers' Party)'s campaigns. Date of the interview: August 14th and 15th 2014.
There is no ban on cash donations, though all contributions shall be made deposited in a designated bank account. Thus, cash deposits to candidates' or political parties' accounts are allowed. These cash donations shall be duly identified.
According to the Article 22 of the Elections Law, both parties and candidates have to open a specific bank account to record all the financial transactions effected during the campaign; donations of financial resources shall only be deposited in these accounts. According to the Article 23 of the same Law, transfers shall be done by means of: crossed and nominal checks or wire transfer; identified cash deposits; web donation via website maintained by the candidate, party or coalition, which may even allow the use of credit card.
Unidentified donations can not be used by candidates or parties, and shall be transferred to the National Treasury, according to the Resolution 23.406 (Art. 29). For a donation to be considered properly identified it has to display the name of the donor and his id: CPF (Taxpayer ID) for individuals, and CNPJ (National Registry of Legal Entities) for companies.
In-kind donations can be done and shall be reported as any other donation (with the estimated cash amount of the good or service donated). The goods and services donated have to be part of the economic activity of the donor or be owned by him/her (Resolution 23.406, art. 23). They are under the same restrictions as financial contributions and shall be reported in the rendering of accounts to the Electoral Justice along with any other types of donation (Article 24 of Elections Law).
Services given by donors must be a product of their usual economic activities, and goods given or leased must be part of the donor's properties (Article 23 of the Elections Law).
All money loans to candidates used in the campaign shall be reported and subjected to the same restrictions as donations, according to the Resolution 23.406 (Art. 26). They are considered "self-donations". There is no legal reference to loans to parties.
Peer reviewer comment: Agree. According to TSE (Tribunal Superior Eleitoral) Resolution 23.406-2014, all loans acquired by candidates will be considered "self-donations" if applied to the campaign. This means that if candidate Luiz gets a bank loan of R$ 400,000 and applies it to his campaign, he must report this "self-donation" to the TSE.
Donations and contributions to parties and candidates are limited to up to ten per cent (10%) of the gross income earned by the donor in the year before the elections, according to the Elections Law 9.504 (Art. 23) and to the Resolution 23.406 (Art. 25). There is no fixed limited amount equally valid for all donors; the limit varies from donor to donor, according to his personal income. This means that though a limit exists, rich donors may contribute vastly more than less wealthy citizens.
Donations and contributions are are limited to two percent (2%) of gross revenue earned in the year preceding the elections, according to the Elections Law 9.504 (Art. 81) and to the Resolution 23.406 (Art. 25). But there is no fixed limited amount equally valid to all corporations, the limit varies from company to company, according to its gross revenues.
According to the Elections Law (Article 24), political parties and candidates are prohibited to receive, either directly or indirectly, any kind of donation from foreign entity or government. The same prohibition appears in the Article 28 of 2014's National Elections Resolution published by TSE.
According to Article 24 of the Elections Law, political parties and candidates are prohibited to receive, either directly or indirectly, cash donations or estimated cash amounts, including by means of publicity of any kind, that explicitly originate from the following third-party actors: professional associations or unions; not-for-profit legal entities that receive funds from abroad; entities devoted to charity and religious affairs; sports organizations; non-governmental organizations that receive public funds; and civil society organizations of public interest.
According to the Elections Law (Art. 17), the spending limits shall be stipulated by Electoral Justice by June 10th of each electoral year. In the case of the Electoral Justice failing to do so, a self-regulating model is established: each party estimates how much each candidate will spend (by position and state) and then this estimation becomes the party's expenditure limit. Thus, there is no maximum amount valid for everyone. For instance, the party X establishes that their candidates to the Chamber of Deputies elected in Sao Paulo will spend a maximum of R$ 700.000 -- and then each of Sao Paulo candidates must, by the law, respect that limit.
The Electoral Justice has never published a limit to campaign spending valid to all participants. Thus, during every election there is only the described self-regulating model.
Peer reviewer comment: Agree. The researcher's description of the law's stance on expenditure limits is correct. Candidates adhere to the spending limit specified by the party because the limit is usually grossly overestimated. There is no punishment for this, nor is there a quick and easy way of knowing when the party puts forth a non-credible limit.
The same regulations govern all elections in Brazil: Presidential, National Congress, Gubernatorial, States and Federal District Parliaments, Mayors and City Councils, as it is stated in the first article of the Elections Law (nº 9.504).
Fernando Neves, former minister of the Superior Electoral Court. Date of the interview: August 12th 2014.
Marlon Reis, electoral judge in Maranhao and active lobbyist for the Clean Slate Bill (2011). Date of the interview: August 19 2014.
Electoral campaigns in Brazil are funded by: private actors (companies' and individuals' donations), parties (via Party Fund and other party resources), and candidates themselves (via self-finance), according to Resolution nº 23.406, Article 19.
The predominant source of funding in the last national electoral campaign (2010) came from corporate donations, which represented almost 60% of all resources. The corporate donations are very concentrated in only a few actors. Considering only the Presidential elections, there were 712 corporate donors; 5% of them (36 of 712) were responsible for 62% of all corporate donations (R$ 401 millions of R$ 648 millions).
"Others" refer to methods used by parties to generate campaign funds, such as commercialization of goods and services; events held by parties/candidates; investments. According to Stella Bruno Santo, a lawyer with large experience in political campaigns from PT, a common example of party's strategies for generating campaign funds is holding dinner parties. The candidate or the party itself communicates the event to the Electoral Justice, who will send agents to verify the veracity of the event. The candidate or party will charge for the invitations and get electoral receipts, reporting the money as individual donations.
Peer reviewer comment: Agree - In the 2014 elections, three companies were, as of September, responsible for 39% of donations for the presidential race. They are food processing company JBS S.A. and construction companies OAS and Andrade Gutierrez.
According to a recent Journal of Politics article by Taylor Boas and colleagues, construction companies that finance federal deputy campaigns are hired by government (at all levels).
As for food processing company JBS, it has received more than R$ 10 billion over the last few years from government bank BNDES.
Brazil's Superior Electoral Court (TSE) centralizes all information about donation and expenditure and hands it to the "Brazilian IRS" (Receita Federal). TSE itself will check expenditures limits -- limits are self imposed by candidates in the act of registration; TSE's job is to check if the reported expeditures are below the limit previously declared by the candidate.
The Receita Federal will cross the data with financial reports from donors (individuals and companies) to see if there were any violations regarding donation limits. The Receita will communicate any violation to the state representation of the Electoral Public Prosecutor's Office (the state in which the donor is based), who will file charges in the Electoral Justice system.
According to Eron Júnior Vieira Pessoa, head of the Advisory Council for Examination of Campaign and Party Accounts at TSE, the most common violations are extrapolation of contribution limits and of expenditure limits; data inconsistencies (wrong IDs of donors, for instance), and irregularities such as receiving donations before the registry of the candidature (which is forbidden by law).
Election Oversight Commissions check both the accounts of candidates to City Hall and City Council and the accounts of municipal-level party directories; Regional Electoral Courts check the accounts of state-level party directories and the accounts of candidates to be State Governors, Senators, Federal Congressmen, State Representatives and District Representatives; The Superior Electoral Court checks the accounts of Presidencial candidates and national party directories.
Hence, data about how many violations were detected in a given national election is extremely difficult to gather.
The Prosecutor General's Office accused 106 companies and 60 individuals for violating contribution limits in the 2010 Presidential elections One single company called Copersucar was fined more than R$ 40 million ($18 million); another one, a bank called Alvorada, was fined more than R$ 45 million ($ 20 million).
Further, in the last elections for City Hall and City Council (2012), there were more than 800 cases of violations of donation limits.
Peer reviewer comment: Agree -Another example of contribution violations after January 2013 is of the company Tratenge Engenharia, which was fined R$ 7 million for donating more than the legal limit in the 2010 elections.
Interview: Eron Júnior Vieira Pessoa, head of the Advisory Council for Examination of Campaign and Party Accounts at the Superior Electoral Court (TSE). Date of the interview: August 8th 2014.
Political parties have to report itemized contributions and expenditures both during and outside electoral campaign periods. Candidates have to report only during electoral campaigns -- but candidates only exist as political actors during electoral campaigns.
Political parties are required to annually submit to the Electoral Courts their accounting statements with itemized contributions and expenditures for the last fiscal year no later than April 30 of the following year. The accounting statements of the national body shall be submitted to the Superior Electoral Courts, those of the state bodies to the Regional Electoral Courts and those of the municipal bodies to the Electoral Judges. In elections years, the parties must submit monthly accounting statements to the Electoral Courts during the four months preceding the election and the two months subsequent to it.
Candidates can only receive donations and spend money during the campaign period, after they do their registration, open a specific bank acount and issue receipts (Resolution 23.406, Art. 3).
Peer reviewer comment: Agree. Candidates are indeed legally prohibited from receiving donations and making expenditures outside of the campaign season. They can only receive donations after getting a 'CNPJ' (Cadastro Nacional de Pessoa Jurídica) and opening a bank account specifically for the campaign. After the campaign, however, this account stays open in order to pay debts, and has no specific date for closing. So an elected politician could conceivably use this to receive donations outside of the campaign season.
Financial donations to political parties are a legal loophole that allows candidates to receive donations prior to their registration as candidates. If a company wants to give money to a candidate, it can donate to the candidate's party – which would then forward the amount to the candidate. This is especially enticing for companies that do not want to be identified as donors for specific candidates.
Financial reports submitted during campaigns must contain itemized lists of contributions and expenditures. It is very common.
The electoral campaign starts on July 5th (Election Law, Art. 36), and the final rendering accounts shall be presented one month after elections, by November 25th (Resolution 23.406, Art. 38). Thus, the official election period is 143 days. During electoral campaign, political parties and candidates must submit two partial reports and a final one -- thus, three in total.
Therefore, financial reports must be submitted once every 47 days (143 days divided by three). As such, parties and candidates are not required to report their financial information on a monthly basis (every 30 days).
Outside electoral campaign periods, political parties are required to submit reports to the Electoral Courts only on a yearly basis (the accounting statements for the last fiscal year should be submitted no later than April 30th of the following year). Candidates do not have to report outside electoral campaigns -- but candidates only exist as political actors during electoral campaigns (after registration).
In law, parties and candidates are required to submit financial reports approximately once every 47 days during the official campaign season.
Outside electoral campaign periods, political parties are required to submit reports to the Electoral Courts only on a yearly basis (the accounting statements for the last fiscal year should be submitted no later than April 30 of the following year). Candidates do not have to report outside electoral campaigns -- as they only exist as political actors during electoral campaigns.
In practice, both partial and final reports submitted during campaigns include detailed financial information with both itemized contributions and itemized expenditures, as the attached examples demonstrate.
The reports have itemized contributions such as name of the donor, ID, amount, and type of contribution. If the money was donated by a private entity to a party, and the party redistributed it among its candidates, in the candidate's rendering of accounts it has to be published the name of the private entity who gave the original donation.
However, there are several examples of illegal contributions being a common practice. Donations made off the books of course are not reported in the rendering of accounts. This means that all accounts are not reported.
The most famous scandal in recent years was the Mensalao scandal, a scheme in which the ruling party, PT, was giving monthly stipends to congressmen and party leaders for them to approve projects of interest to the Administration. When the scandal began, former President Lula and other PT leaders dismissed it as being "only" a slush fund scheme to finance election campaigns -- which demonstrates how this illegal practice can be seen as something minor or even expected in Brazil.
More recently, Petrobras, Brazil’s largest oil company, has been accused of being involved in a large corruption scheme that entails the use of a slush fund for Ms. Rousseff’s PT and its coalition parties in Brasília.
Interview: Claudio Weber Abramo, head of Transparencia Brasil, a nonprofit watchdog group that fights corruption; Date of the interview: July 30th 2014.
According to Eron and Stella Santo, all types of legal contribution are reported -- there are no exceptions.
"Estimable cash donations from companies or individuals need to be registered with the estimated value in use during the period, calculated in accordance with the market value. Movable and immovable property need to be part of the donor's assets, and the goods and services donated must be part of the donor's economic activities. A construction company can not, for example, donate paper to a campaign.
For individuals, even if the donor does not have annual income (as, for example, an unemployed or retired person) there are norms to follow: he or she can loan a good (like cars or furnitures), provided the value does not exceed R$ 50,000", says Ms. Stella Santos.
However, there are several reports of illegal contributions -- donations made off the books, "slush funds" --, as stated in the sources. "Slush funds" are campaign funds received illegally, off the books. The money is usually originated in a complex web of public contracts, corrupt bankers, politicians and companies. Probably the most common way of obtaining this sort of money is overestimating how much a public service costs and hiring a company (or a host of companies) to do the job. The company later "repays" the party in office using part of this money. This is completely illegal due to the fact that all funds must be publicly accounted for in every campaign.
More recently, Petrobras, Brazil’s largest oil company, has been accused of being envolved in a large corruption scheme that entails the use of a slush fund for Ms. Rousseff’s PT and its coalition in Brasília.
Stella Santo, lawyer with experience working at PT (Workers' Party)'s campaigns. Date of the interview: August 14th and 15th 2014.
Example of individual candidate report (see attachment): Final report issued in 2012 by Fortaleza mayor candidate Renato Roseno (of the Socialism and Freedom Party - PSOL).
Parties have to send their monthly and yearly reports, and those documents have to be published online (Resolução nº 21.841, Art. 17, Sole Paragraph).
Citizens can easily access the financial information of all political parties and individual candidates on the Superior Electoral Court’s website. Both parties’ yearly financial reports (since 2007) and candidates/parties’ elections reports are freely available online. However, only election reports are available in machine-readable formats. Indeed, the annual party reports lack standardization and are only available in PDF format (not machine readable).
According to Claudio Weber Abramo, head of the NGO Transparencia Brasil, TSE’s election data is very complete, but lacks organization. That’s why the NGO maintains a user-friendly platform to access all financial information about candidates and political committees: www.asclaras.org.br.
Claudio Weber Abramo, head of Transparencia Brasil (anti-corruption watchdog); Date of the interview: July 30th 2014.
Election data (candidates’ or parties’) is available to the public in a standardized format. Yearly parties’ financial reports are not, though. “Each party displays information differently and in non-machine-readable formats, but the data is fairly comparable”, says Claudio W. Abramo. It is possible to compare general itens (like amount and type of donations).
For instance, the organization of the information (income, expenses) on the 2013 financial reports from PT and PSDB, two of Brazil's most important parties, varies a great deal. But with some time and work it is possible to find the comparable data (one party's surplus compared to the other's, for instance, as is evident in the listed sources.
That said, according to José Roberto de Toledo, president of the Brazilian Association of Investigative Journalism, the accounts presented by parties outside electoral periods are of relatively poor quality (in PDF format and without standardization). He states, "it is almost impossible to explore these data. Doing so requires a lot of manual labor, which discourages reporters."
José Roberto de Toledo; president of the Brazilian Association of Investigative Journalism (ABRAJI), journalist and columnist at O Estado de S.Paulo; Date of the interview: July 28th 2014.
Mainstream journalism media outlets -- both national and regional -- use political finance data often in their reporting.
During elections, political parties and candidates must report their financial data to the relevant authorities thrice. For the current campaign period, the first reports were released on August 6th 2014. The next few days after that, all mainstream newspapers published articles about them.
They published information regarding main corporate donors (such as the article "Three companies are responsible for 65% of all contributions given to Presidential candidates", published at Folha); concentration of contributions ("Dilma, Aecio and Campos received 94% of all donations to Presidencial candidates", published at Folha); donations by economic sector ("Dilma is the Presidencial candidate with more donations from agribusiness", at O Estado de S.Paulo) or by parties ("PMDB is the party that received donations the most").
However, as points out José Roberto de Toledo, president of the Brazilian Association of Investigative Journalism, most journalists are incapable of substantively exploring the data themselves in order to reach new and non-cliche conclusions. Most articles are restricted to lists of candidates who spend the most, biggest donors etc.
"There is a lot of room for improvement. Especially when it comes to training journalists and helping them to explore these databases, crossing them with other kind of data. For instance, crossing corporate donations and contracts these firms have with state-owned companies", says Toledo.
Interview: José Roberto de Toledo; president of the Brazilian Association of Investigative Journalism (ABRAJI), journalist and columnist at O Estado de S.Paulo; Date of the interview: July 28th 2014.
The most famous scandal in recent years was the Mensalao scandal, a scheme in which the ruling party, PT, was giving monthly stipends to congressmen and party leaders for them to approve projects of interest to the Administration. When the scandal began, former President Lula and other PT leaders dismissed it as being "only" a slush fund scheme to finance election campaigns -- which demonstrates how this ilegal practice can be seen as something minor or even expected in Brazil.
Regarding the most recent national elections (2010), there were several reports about slush funds (campaigns with illict cash books).
Just a few examples: In the state of Goias, a journalist said he received R40.000 ($17,199) from slush funds of the governor Marconi Perillo's reelection campaign; in a hearing at the National Congress, the journalist added that "it is common" to be paid with money from slush funds.
After 2010's national elections, a former appointee of Dnit [National Department of Transport Infrastructure] said that PT and PSDB used slush funds and kickback money to finance their campaigns. Another common violation is the exceeding of contribution limits. In 2010, the Electoral Justice analyzed more than 10.000 cases of ilegal donations.
Peer reviewer comment: Agree. "Slush funds" are campaign funds received illegally, off the books. The money is usually originated in a complex web of public contracts, corrupt bankers, politicians and companies. Probably the most common way of obtaining this sort of money is overestimating how much a public service costs and hiring a company (or a host of companies) to do the job. The company later "repays" the party in office using part of this money. This is completely illegal due to the fact that all funds must be publicly accounted for in every campaign.
Interview: Interview with Claudio Weber Abramo, head of Transparencia Brasil (anti-corruption watchdog); Date of the interview: August 1st 2014.
Regarding the most recent national elections (2010), there were several reports about vote-buying. Though reports were not exactly "frequent", they were definitely more than two.
The examples range from more well-thought schems to more prosaic attempts. For instance: a) Wiretapes revealed that the governor or Roraima was envolved in a vote-buying scheme in 2010: his wife and brother were heard offering cash and social benefits to voters. b) A candidate running for the Senate was publicly accused of paying for the gas of voters if they would agree to participate in car demonstration for his campaign.
Three candidates running for state governments in 2014 elections were already condemned in the past for vote-buying.
In 2012 elections, more than 10 thousand cases were analyzed by the Electoral Justice, and 166 mayors were impeached, according to a news article at Fantastico.
Peer reviewer comment: Disagree. Suggests a score of 0.
Vote buying is rampant in Brazil. A former campaign official for the PSDB told me, anonymously, how the party hired "cabos eleitorais" (ie, fake party members) for US$ 50/day, during three days in the 2010 elections, to vote for a specific candidate and also bring a list of the name and electoral registry of at least ten people who would also vote for the candidate. The candidate in question received more than 6,000 votes in the city in which this strategy took place.
There are at least three states in which vote buying was common in the 2010 elections, as is clear in the articles included below.
Interview with Claudio Weber Abramo, head of Transparencia Brasil (anti-corruption watchdog); Date of the interview: August 1st 2014.
According to experts there is only one NGO that systematically uses officially published financial information as part of its work. The NGO is Transparencia Brasil. It maintains a website called Às Claras -- the website has not only the official data about contributions in a user-friendly platform, but also brings the possibility to explore the submitted data by parties, donors etc. Other organizations refrain from focusing on political finance because of a lack of popular demand for such information.
Interview with José Roberto de Toledo; president of the Brazilian Association of Investigative Journalism (ABRAJI), journalist and columnist at O Estado de S.Paulo; Date of the interview: July 28th 2014.
In 2006, the Law 11.300/06 added four items to the list of legal entities unable to donate do political parties and candidates: charitable and religious organizations; sports entities; non-governmental organizations that receive public funds and civil society organizations of public interest.
In the face of widespread outrage over the Mensalao Scandal (several irregularities involving politicians and campaign fundraising), in 2006 the same act established a mechanism by which it is possible for the Electoral Court to annul a candidate’s registration or diploma, if it is proven that he or she received illegal donations or made illegal expenditures.
Change in the distribution of television and radio airtime’s slots and the distribution of the Party Fund (Lei nº 12.875, de 2013). Previously, the calculation considered the number of representatives or votes the party had in the last elections for the Chamber of Representatives. Now the calculation considered the number of representatives actually elected and votes received by the party in the last national elections -- newly-created parties who haven't been through elections will no longer profit from the affiliation of representatives who were elected by a different party. Since it is relatively common for Brazilian politicians to change parties in the middle of legislatures, this measure discourages them from negotiating their migration solely based on the addition of airtime and Party Fund contribution to the new party.
Candidates and parties were required in 2012 to detail donors and suppliers in the partial accounts submitted during elections -- before the change, they were required to do so only in the final redering of accounts. The decision was made in 2012 by the minister Carmem Lúcia based on the Access to Information Law (12,527/10). Now it has already been incorporated to the Election's Law (9,504).
With the Clean Slate Law (Law 135/2010), from 2010, candidates who had been revoked under certain circumstances or sentenced by a decision of a collective body (with more than one judge) for specific irregularities (such as for using state resources in electoral campaigns or for vote-buying) become ineligible for eight years. The ineligibility period counts from the election in which the illegal act occurred.
In 2014, for the first time candidates and political parties had to present the original donor of each contribution. This means that if the company Y donated $ 100 to a party committee, that would later pass part of that amount to the candidate X, in candidate X's rendering of account the name of firm Y has to appear as the "original donor".
One of the hottest topics in political finance regulation in Brazil is the private funding of campaigns. This discussion comes in the aftermath of Brazil's Mensalão scandal, in which politicians and officials diverted public funds to buy political support for the government of the then President Lula. Defendants said the scheme was only a way of paying electoral campaign debts (which is also illegal, as the debts were not made public). This allegation generated debate about the high cost of electoral campaigns, which are fueled by corporate donations.
There are a few bills and a court rulling under debate: a) The Supreme Court is rulling about whether to prohibite corporate donations or not (ADI 4650). The trial started in 2013. b) One of the most important bills under discussion is the PEC 352/13, in the Chamber of Deputies, to create caps for campaign expenditures and to limit corporate donations to parties (not candidates).
professional association or unions; not-for-profit legal entity that receives funds from abroad; entities devoted to charity and religious affairs; sports organizations; non-governmental organizations that receive public funds; civil society organizations of public interest.
The few third-party actors that can donate, such as clubs or associations, do not have any obligation to report itemized contributions received and expenditures to an oversight authority. This includes independent expenditures.
The few third-party actors that can donate do not have to submit any special political finance report to the oversight authority. Thus, there is no such reporting in practice.
Claudio Weber Abramo, head of Transparencia Brasil (anti-corruption watchdog); July 30th 2014.
José Roberto de Toledo; president of the Brazilian Association of Investigative Journalism (ABRAJI), journalist and columnist at O Estado de S.Paulo; July 28th 2014.
Most third-party actors (professional association or union; not-for-profit legal entity that receives funds from abroad; entities devoted to charity and religious affairs; sports organizations; non-governmental organizations that receive public funds; civil society organizations of public interest) are banned from participating in electoral campaigns. The few third-party actors that can donate do not have any obligation to report itemized contributions received and expenditures to an oversight authority. Independent expenditures are unregulated.
However, two actors mentioned above (banned from donations) have to make public reports (unrelated to elections, since they cannot donate): non-profits that receive public funds ; and civil society organizations of public interest. Those reports are publicly available.
In a general overview, however, the financial information of third party actors is not easily accessible for journalists or citizens.
Most third-party actors (professional association or union; not-for-profit legal entity that receives funds from abroad; entities devoted to charity and religious affairs; sports organizations; non-governmental organizations that receive public funds; civil society organizations of public interest) are banned from donations. The few third-party actors that can donate do not have any obligation to report itemized contributions received and expenditures to an oversight authority.
However, some of them have direct or indirect influence over the electoral process.
Unions, for instance, are usually indirectly managed by parties -- the most prominent are PT, Solidariedade, PDT, PSTU, PSOL, PCB. Therefore, the infrastructure of the unions is usually used for campaigns. In 2014 elections, the largest union, CUT, controlled by PT, made a formal endorsement for Dilma Rousseff (PT candidate to reelection).
There are cases in which entities break the law in order to donate. In 2008, a large patronal union (real state in Sao Paulo) created a fake entity in order to donate to campaigns. The fake entity became the second largest donor of that year's municipal elections.
The Electoral Justice performs an assessment of the regularity and consistency of campaign accounts, and shall decide as follows (Elections Law, Article 30; Article 30-A): I – approval of accounts in case they are proper and correct; II – approval with reservations in case the accounts feature minor errors which do not compromise their regularity; III – denial of accounts in case they feature errors that compromise their regularity; IV – non-rendering of accounts in case they are not filed after notice issued by the Electoral Justice which expressly orders the rendering of such accounts within seventy-two hours.
The Electoral Justice will make full assessment of incomes and expenditures, the use of Party Fund, and formal inconsistencies. In order to perform its job, shall require the assistance of technicians from the Federal Court of Accounts or Courts of Accounts of the States, Federal District or Municipalities, for as long as it deems necessary.
However, the Electoral Justice will not investigate things such as slush funds (second cash books) or vote-buying. Another actor will perform this job: the Electoral Attorney General's Office. For instance, the Electoral Justice will hand to the Brazilian IRS (Receita Federal) a list of all donations received by candidates and parties. The Receita Federal will check if donation limits were respected or not; then will send a list of companies and individuals to be prosecuted by the Electoral Attorney General's Office, who will file lawsuits in the Electoral Justice.
The Electoral Attorney General's Office will also make investigations and audits when necessary.
Also any political party or coalition is required to present to the Electoral Justice (reporting facts and indicating evidence) and comply with judicial investigations on conduct that does not comply with the regulations established in law, notably those related to fund raising and spending.
Silvana Batini, former appellate federal prosecutor and professor of electoral law at FGV. Date of the interview: August 14th 2014.
The ministers of the Superior Electoral Court are the highest-level appointments to the oversight authority (Electoral Justice).
According to Brazilian constitution: "The superior electoral court shall be composed of a minimum of seven members chosen: I – through election, by secret vote elected (by the ministers themselves that are part of the courts): a) three judges from among the Justices of the Supreme Federal Court (STF); b) two judges from among the Justices of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ); II – through appointment by the President of the Republic, two judges from among six lawyers of notable juridical learning and good moral repute, nominated by the supreme federal court.
The superior electoral court shall elect its president and vice- president from among the Justices of the supreme federal court, and its electoral magistrate from among the Justices of the superior court of Justice." (Brazilian Constitution, Article 119).
I – a judge of the Federal Regional Courts or a judge of the Courts of Justice, nominated in a list of three names prepared by the Court itself; II – a lawyer and or a member of the federal public prosecution, the public prosecution of the states, the public prosecution of the federal district and the territories.
Which means that in order to become a member of the STJ or STF, the individual will have to: have been approved in a high-level public competition ("concurso público); will have been approved by the majority of Senators, after a public hearing; and will finally be nominated by the President.
Judges are forbidden to (Brazilian Constitution, Article 95): I – hold, even when on paid availability, another office or position, except for a teaching position; ii – receive, on any account or for any reason, court costs or participation in a lawsuit; iii – engage in political or party activities; IV – receive, on any account or for any reason, financial aid or contribution from individuals, and from public or private institutions, save for the exceptions set forth in law; V – practice law in the court or tribunal on which they served as judges, for a period of three years following their retirement or discharge.
Further, article 16 of the Electoral Code states that members should not: own companies that have contracts with government; ocupy public position; or be related by blood with one another.
As previously noted, there are seven ministers at the TSE, including three judges from among the judges of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), two judges from among the judges of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), and two judges from among six lawyers of notable juridical learning and good moral repute.
According to Mr. Fernando Neves and Ms. Silvana Batini, there are no questions or doubts about the merit of the members of the STF or STJ.
Two lawyers from a list of six lawyers of notable juridical learning and good moral repute appointed by the STF are nominated by the President. The list is only a "suggestion", but in "80% of the cases, the President goes with the most well-ranked nominee", says Fernando Neves, former minister of the TSE. According to him, even the choosing of lawyers is strictly based on merit. "In the end, this is STF's decision. We are talking about a group of 11 ministers, with a lot of diversity among themselves, and with no one willing to risk their reputation."
According to Mr. Neves, the lawyers stay at the TSE for two years, which can be extended for up to two more years (Constitution, Article 121, Paragraph 2). "I have over of 40 years of experience in electoral courts, I don't see it as a biased choice."
According to Ms. Batini, there is no measuring of these lawyers' "notable juridical learning", since they do not take any exam nor are submitted to public hearings. "They don't have to be experts in electoral law", she says.
Mr. Claudio Weber Abramo adds that all appointed lawyers work with elections and have amongst their clients politicians and political parties. One recent example is Ms. Luciana Lossio, the most recent appointee from the lawyers' quota and current minister of TSE. She was appointed in 2013 via the process of a triple list sent by STF to the President Dilma Rousseff, who chose her. Ms. Lossio is specialized in Elections Legislation and a professor at Centro Universitário de Brasília (UniCEUB). Before being appointed, Ms. Lossio represented several politicians and parties, including the party coalition that elected Ms. Rousseff in 2010.
Silvana Batini, former appellate federal prosecutor and professor of electoral law at Fundacao Getulio Vargas. Date of the interview: August 14th 2014.
Superior Electoral Courts' members and mandates: http://www.tse.jus.br/institucional/ministros. Accessed August 2014.
High-level appointees to the TSE are judges. They are in charge of issuing decisions regarding elections and reviewing cases from lower levels, if there is an appeal -- hence, they have the authority to review all political cases. "The decisions of the TSE are unappealable, save those which are contrary to this constitution and those denying habeas corpus or writs of mandamus" (Constitution, Article 121, Paragraph 3).
They enjoy full guarantees of tenure and shall be non-removable (Constitution, Article 121, Paragraph 1). Their terms of office last two years (Constitution, Article 121, Paragraph 2).
Judges can be removed only if they engage in illegal activities such as receiving brives or engage in political activities, for example. Judges Law, Art. 26). The court itself will decide on this matter (it has to reach a 2/3 majority), according to the Art. 27 of the Judges Law. Article 27 states that, if a judge is involved in illegal activiites, a committee of 25 judges (12 according to seniority, twelve elected, plus the judge who presides at the state court), decides whether to remove or acquit the accused justice.
As previously stated, there are seven ministers at the Superior Electoral Court (TSE), and they are composed by three judges from among the judges of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), two judges from among the judges of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), and two judges from among six lawyers of notable juridical learning and good moral repute.
The judges from STF and STJ are chosen to be part of the TSE on a rotational basis. To be part of either the STF or the STJ, judges have to be appointed by the President, after being approved by the absolute majority of the Senate -- but before even being considered for those higher courts, they went through a public competition in order to become regular judges. Two lawyers from a list of six lawyers of notable juridical learning and good moral repute appointed by the STF are nominated by the President to also be a part of the TSE board.
Although they don't go through a competition process or hearings, according to Mr. Fernando Neves, former minister of the TSE, lawyers are also independent. "In the end, this is the STF's decision. We are talking about a group of 11 ministers, with a lot of diversity among themselves, and with no one willing to risk their reputation."
According to Ms. Batini, however, lawyers are nominated for this on the basis of their political influence. "They are not submitted to exams, they don't go through public hearings, and don't have to leave their careers as lawyers."
Appointees are granted security of tenure; for them to be removed, disciplined or transferred they have to go through a due process by a peer panel (Electoral Code, Article 22). There are no recent examples of attempt of removing judges.
Five out of the seven TSE judges were appointed either by the current President Dilma Rousseff or by former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, both from PT. This hasn't prevented them from ruling against Ms. Rousseff in her reelection campaign. On September 3rd 2014, for instance, the Court fined the president of Petrobras, a state-owned company, for airing advertisement in favor of the company -- thus, in favor of the government. Petrobras' president was fined in more than R$ 200,000 ($ 90,000).
The composition of the decision-making body within the oversight authority (the TSE board) is as follows: There are seven ministers; three of them are judges from among the judges of the Supreme Federal Court (STF); two others are judges from among the judges of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ); and two judges from among a list of six lawyers of "notable juridical learning and good moral repute" issued by the STF (the President chooses the two names).
For every case, there is one designated minister to be some kind of reporter. He will read the whole lawsuit, make a summary and state his vote on the matter. The involved partiess in the lawsuit can intervene and present oral defenses. The other ministers can agree with the minister that reported the lawsuit or have a different take on the subject. A majority is required in all decisions to declare a candidate or a party guilty.
TSE's decision are unappealable, save those which are allegedly contrary to the constitution and those denying habeas corpus or writs of mandamus (Electoral Code, Article 281; Constitution, Article 121). There have been no well substantiated complaints about the decision-making process being ineffective or politicized.
Presidential candidates and national party directories send their financial reports straight to the Superior Electoral Court (TSE); candidates to State Government, Senate, Congressmen, State Representatives and state-level party directories report to the Regional Electoral Court; candidates to municipal-level elections and municipal-level party directories report to the electoral boards.
All financial reports are monitored -- if they are not submitted, the responsible candidates/parties will be notified by the relevant authorities. Once received, all reports are reviewed for compliance with basic regulatory requirements.
However, the Electoral Justice staff for monitoring and reviewing political financial reports operates with almost half of the ideal number of technicians, says Eron Júnior Vieira Pessoa, head of the Advisory Council for Examination of Campaign and Party Accounts at the Superior Electoral Court.
In this structure, the TSE is the one with the best structure, but has only 17 employees to monitor and review all national accounts. According to Mr. Pessoa, they needed at least 30 people full time in order to review all reports.
In the Regional Electoral Courts and Electoral Boards, the lack of professionals is worse. Mr. Marlon Reis, electoral judge in the city of Joao Lisboa, in the state of Maranhao, says his staff has only two technicians -- during elections, three technicians are "borrowed" from the City Hall, and none of them are trained accountants. Further, according to Mr Reis, there is the additional problem of potential bias, as City Hall technicians have close links to the Mayor, which can impact their performance of their duties.
Eron Júnior Vieira Pessoa, head of the Advisory Council for Examination of Campaign and Party Accounts at the Superior Electoral Court (TSE). Date of the interview: August 8th 2014.
The Electoral Justice does not conduct investigations for things such as slush funds (second cash books), vote-buying or donation limits violations. Two other actors perform this job: the Electoral Attorney General's Office and the Federal Police.
For instance, the Electoral Justice will hand to the Brazilian IRS (Receita Federal) a list of all donations received by candidates and parties. The Receita Federal will check if donation limits were respected or not; then will send a list of companies and individuals to be prosecuted by the Electoral Attorney General's Office, who will file lawsuits in the Electoral Justice. The Electoral Attorney General's Office and the Federal Police conduct investigations and audits when necessary -- and there have been certainly more than three during 2014's elections.
For instance: the federal police is investigating if the airplane in which former candidate Eduardo Campos was killed in an accident last August was bought with slush funds money; the Electoral Attorney General's Office is investigating if a state government candidate in Parana and another one in Mato Grosso do Sul are using slush funds during this campaign.
Any political party or coalition is entitled to represent before the Electoral Justice after the certification, reporting facts and indicating evidence, and require judicial investigation on conducts that do not comply with the regulations established in law, notably those related to fund raising and spending.
Peer reviewer comment: Agree. In the 2014 presidential elections, the Workers' Party asked the Attorney General's Office to investigate how Marina Silva (PSB), the candidate who took over from Eduardo Campos after his death, was paid for lectures and work as a consultant after she left the Senate. So far, she has been publicly acquitted of any sort of wrongdoing.
All the following Electoral Justice's decisions are immediately published: - The denial or non-rendering of accounts; - The decision regarding complaints brought either by the Electoral Attorney General's Office or by any political party, candidate or coalition (who are entitled to represent before the Electoral Justice and require judicial investigation).
For instance, if a politician is convicted for an electoral crime, for irregularities in his rendering of accounts, or for any other reason under TSE's jurisdiction, the decision will be fully published.
For instance: two 2014 candidates for state government positions were impeached for vote-buying in the past. One of them was Mr. Expedito Junior, from the state of Rondonia. In the decision, published in 2010, it is possible to see what was exactly the crime (he made bank deposits directly to employees of a private security company), and what the judge ruled. The other one was Cassio Cunha Lima, from the state of Paraiba. In the published sentence, it is possible to know that he used social programs to distributed checks to electors and to read the judge's sentence.
However, full reports of deeper investigations conducted by the Electoral Attorney General's Office or by the Federal Police are not published. What is published is only the text with the Court's decisions.
In the Elections Law, there are sanctions clearly stated in response to political finance violations: - Donations that exceed the limits established by the law shall subject offenders to the payment of a fine of five to ten times the amount paid in excess (Article 23, Paragraph 3). - Parties that violate the regulations on fundraising and allocation of resources established by the law shall lose the right to receive monies from the Party Fund in the coming year, which does not exempt candidates that benefited from abuse of economic power to be held liable for such offense (Article 25) - Expenditures that exceed the limits established by candidates themselves shall subject them to the payment of a fine of five to ten times the amount paid in excess (Article 23, Paragraph 3). - Should fund raising and spending for electoral purposes be proven illegal, the candidate shall have his/her certification denied or annulled, in case it has already been issued (Article 30-A, Paragraph 2).
Their decisions are unappealable, save those which are contrary to the Constitution and those denying habeas corpus or writs of mandamus.
The Electoral Justice's decisions are usually obeyed. Especially in cases of imprisonment and ineligibility, there is no debate or possibility of offenders not complying -- the only thing that can be done is to file an appeal at the Supreme Court. "But even in that case, eventually the decision will become definitive. The TSE removes mayors, governors, representatives, city counselors from office, and makes them ineligible for future office -- which is political death", says Mr. Fernando Neves.
According to the Regional Electoral Court of the state of Sao Paulo, 47 mayors were impeached by the court after the last municipal elections (2012) due to violations (see attached file). There are 645 cities in Sao Paulo, which means 7% of elected mayors were impeached.
Ms. Silvana Batini, though, highlights that when financial reports submitted to the TSE by candidates are not approved, nothing really happens. Political parties can argue before the TSE that their political opponents should be sanctioned, but they have only 15 days after the certification to argue before the Electoral Justice, reporting facts, indicating evidence and requiring judicial investigation on conduct that do not comply with the regulations established in the law, notably those related to fundraising and spending. "This is a very tight deadline. Additionally, this is usually done only for the elected candidates. Which means that whoever financed himself illegally, but did not win, will not even be bothered."
In another relevant example, the senator Cassio Cunha Lima appealed a large fine that imposed for an abuse of power in 2006, and has yet to comply with the fine. His case is still ongoing.
Fernando Neves, former minister of the Superior Electoral Court. Date of the interview: August 11th 2014.
There are two main factors impeding more effective enforcement of political finance regulation.
One is the limited staff at the Electoral Justice's branches and at the Electoral Prosecutor's Office. The Electoral Justice staff for monitoring and reviewing political financial reports operates with almost half of the ideal number of technicians, according to Eron Júnior Vieira Pessoa, head of the Advisory Council for Examination of Campaign and Party Accounts at the Superior Electoral Court.
The situation at the Electoral Prosecutor's Office's office is no different, says Silvana Batini, former appellate federal prosecutor and professor of electoral law at FGV. "There is no pattern, when analyzing the Electoral Prosecutor's Office (MPE) in different states. In Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo, the MPE investigates and receives complaint from citizens. But we do not have capacity for putting investigators in the field. We work in-doors, in offices, depending on the complaints brought by citizens and candidates. Sometimes we require the assistance of the Federal Police", says Ms. Batini.
The other reason is the Brazilian judicial system itself: candidates and parties usually are able to file a lot of appeals. "Since candidates can file a lot of appeals, the timing goes against removing him from office in his first mandate."
Regarding specifically the political finance system, there are a few urgent reforms. First, establishing an absolute ceiling for donations both by private firms and individuals. Ideally, since the economic disparity among states is very high, the ceiling would vary from state to state according to the their GDPs. Second, the penalties -- specially the ones applied for using slush funds -- should be more severe, in an attempt to curb this kind of practice. Third, donations from individuals should be promoted. Possible incentives in this direction are tax benefits and matching funds (in this latter situation, parties would look more for citizen contribution).
Secondly, the excessive number of political parties (more than 30 at the last count) is a major factor in making campaigns expensive. If campaigns are too expensive and the expectation of being punished is low, rational political actors tend to engage in illegal financing in order to get an electoral advantage (of course this is a simplification, but it gets to the gist of how politics work in Brazil). How might these two aspects be resolved? First, accountability agencies are in dire need of getting more bureaucratic capacity. The Controladoria-Geral da União, a comptroller's office at the federal level, has been very vocal, in the last few months, about how they lack funds and human resources. And although the Polícia Federal (equivalent to the FBI) has received a lot of pay rises in the last ten years (Carvalho 2011), it is more prone to political interference than it could be (although political appointments are not a mechanism for this, contrary to popular understanding).
Finally, regarding electoral competition, a barrier clause that would shun from parliament political parties that receive less than 5% of the vote in a certain number of districts would go a very, very long way in reducing corruption and making campaigns cheaper.
Reviewer's sources: Carvalho, Eneuton Dornellas Pessoa. “Salários e política de vencimentos no poder Executivo federal na primeira década de 2000”, in Cardoso Jr., José Celso. (org). Burocracia e Ocupação no Setor Público Brasileiro. Brasília, IPEA, 2011, p. 133-178.
Filgueiras, Fernando and Ana Luiza Melo Aranha. 2011. Controle da Corrupção e Burocracia da Linha de Frente: Regras, Discricionariedade e Reformas no Brasil. Dados – Revista de Ciências Sociais. 54(2): 349-387.
Praça, Sérgio & Taylor, Matthew. "Inching toward accountability: the evolution of Brazil's anti-corruption institutions, 1985-2010”, Latin American Politics & Society, v. 56, n. 2, 2014, p. 27-48.
Brazil is led by a directly elected President, and also has a bicameral Parliament. The President is elected by majority vote in a two round system, and is the head of state.
Members of the lower house of Parliament, the Chamber of Deputies, are elected in a proportional system to four year terms. There are 513 seats in the chamber, and they're allocated proportionally between the 27 states according to each state's population. The number of seats for electoral districts varies between 8 and 70, with seats allocated according to an open list system: parties put forward a list of candidates in no order of preference and voters may vote for a party (legenda) or for a candidate (nominal). Votes are totalled in each electoral district, with nominal plus legenda votes determining the distribution of seats among the parties; the candidates of each party receiving the most votes take up the number of seats won by their party.
The 81 members of the Federal Sentate are elected on a majority basis to eight year terms. The 81 Senate seats are made up of three members for each state and the Federal District. Senators are elected by simple majority for an eight-year term. Part of the Senate is renewed at each election, (two-thirds in one election, one-third in the next election).
Parties and individual candidates both play a role in the management of campaigns and electoral funds.
The most recent elections were held in October 2010, and new elections will occur later this year.
In the 2010 presidential elections, Dilma Rousseff of the Worker's Party (PT) was elected president. The leftist PT elected 86 federal deputies, while center PMDB elected 78, opposition party PSDB elected 54, minor coalition member PP 44, and nine other parties elected more than 10 deputies, making this a very fragmented Chamber of Deputies.

References: Art. 40
 Art. 47
 art. 23
 Art. 3
 Art. 36
 Art. 38
 Art. 17
 Art. 26
 Art. 27
 v.