Gilmar Mendes: Political landscape key in case against Rousseff-Temer ticket

In a statement made today (Mar. 13), Gilmar Mendes, head of Brazil's Superior Electoral Court (TSE), said that the country's political landscape should be taken into account in the probes into the possible abuse of political and economic power by the Rousseff-Temer ticket in the 2014 presidential campaign.

In December 2014, then President Dilma Rousseff's campaign accounts and that of her ticket companion Michel Temer, were unanimously approved, though with caveats, by the TSE. The case, however, was reopened, as the Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB) questioned the approval, for understanding the accounts presented by Dilma Rousseff had been irregular and that funds were pocketed as part of the corruption scheme investigated under Operation Car Wash. The PSDB, the main opposition party against Rousseff's administration, is now part of the government.

During a lecture in São Paulo, Gilmar Mendes noted that the case is a complex one. “It's been a complex matter all along. It took us a year to grant the request for his case. The debate on its admissibility lasted the whole of 2015,” he added.

The Workers' Party (PT) denies any wrongdoing in Dilma Rousseff's campaign and argues that the entire process of contracting firms for the campaign, as well as the distribution of material and electoral propaganda were documented and kept under close scrutiny.

Early this month, Temer's defense sustained with the TSE that the electoral campaign of the Brazilian Democratic Movement Party (PMDB), the current president's party, has no links with the suspicious payments. According the party's attorneys, no irregularities were found in the payment for services.

Mendes further said that the candidates, if stripped from office, are still allowed to run in new elections, including indirect elections at Congress, which would be held in case the presidency were left vacant. “In theory, the court has favored the invalidation of the ticket, but also protected the eligibility of the one who had no involvement. So, if the court understands that there was no involvement, he's still eligible,” Mendes argued.

Slush funds and corruption

Mendes also made a point to differentiate between unregistered campaign donations and corruption. He argued, however, that legal transfers may be carried out in an attempt to conceal illicit practices. “We must not necessarily treat corruption and slush funds as one and the same thing. There will be cases of slush funds stemming from corruption—the money was hidden, came from a spurious source, and aimed to achieve something spurious. And some slush funds simple aim to conceal from the public the funds that were earmarked for campaigning,” he said.

Gilmar Mendes went on to say that legal donations may be brought under investigation if there is evidence, as some testimonies show, that they were used as kickbacks. “They could be investigated, if there were other purposes, other intentions. If funds were really meant to benefit candidates in this manner, with illicit advantages, this may be a case of corruption, even though they're regular, registered funds,” he added.

Translated by Fabrício Ferreira