The Senate has approved a bill for restricting campaign spending, which was then sent back to the Chamber (Brazil’s House of Representatives). Instead of making amendments to the text approved by senators (which would mean another trip to the Senate), the bill’s relator at the CCJ (Constitution and Justice Comission) decided to cut some provisions and present the final text for voting.
According to this piece at Folha de S. Paulo, she decided it was better to let go of some parts than having to send a new text back to the Senate. This way, she hopes the bill will be voted and approved in time for next year’s presidential elections.
“I’ve opted for not making substitutive amendments in order to avoid damage or prevent [the bill] from being voted in time for next year’s election“, Rep. Iriny Lopes (Workers’ Party - ES) told the newspaper. So, gone are provisions prohibiting the use of outdoors scenes in television ads as well as the criminalization of boca-de-urna (active last-day campaigning).
The bill’s final draft should have been voted this thursday, but representatives from PSDB have asked for a review. This way, the bill should make it to the CCJ’s next reunion schedule, by next tuesday. Iriny says it will take a “big effort” from fellow congressmen to approve it in time for next year’s election, but that “other bills have been approved in the same situation” before.
The congresswoman says the bill is a step toward Brazil’s much needed political reform, and that any parties or congressmen who try to block ir or decide to vote against it will have to “explain themselves before public opinion”. If the bill is approved, parties and candidates will be forced to release a daily report, on the Internet, detailing all campaign figures as well as funding sources. This way, Congress hopes to stifle money laundering and dubious loans.
What strikes me as just silly though are provisions against showmícios, or rallies with artists’ performances. The bill’s manifest utility is to cut money spending, so to forbid parties from hiring popular musicians to perform at a rally would seem reasonable. But to prevent an artist from voluntarily performing for his/her candidate seems to me like an unnecessary restricition on political speech.
(Editor’s note: for copyright reasons, I thought it would be best not to translate the whole piece)
