The Tomb of the Unknown Donor: Beancounting “For a Decent Brazil”

The image “https://i0.wp.com/i113.photobucket.com/albums/n216/cbrayton/juridicas.png” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.
Transparency Brazil summary of the Decent Brazil accounts: Donations 100% corporate.

Ministério Público recomenda rejeição das contas do PSDB em 2006 (Folha de S. Paulo):  The federal elections prosecutor’s office joins the accounting division of the federal elections tribunal in recommending that the campaign finance report of one member of the “For a Decent Brazil” coalition for the 2006 presidential elections be rejected.

See also

The result could be the disqualification of the coalition’s candidate, former São Paulo governor Geraldo Alckmin, from standing for office. He had been talked about as a candidate for the mayor’s office of the city so nice they named it twice: São Paulo, SP.

Em parecer encaminhado ao TSE (Tribunal Superior Eleitoral), o Ministério Público Eleitoral recomenda a rejeição das contas apresentadas pelo comitê financeiro nacional do PSDB relativas à campanha do então candidato à Presidência da República nas eleições de 2006, Geraldo Alckmin.

In an opinion sent up to the TSE, the MPE recommends rejecting the accounts presented by the national finance committee of the PSDB, as it relates to the Alckmin candidacy, be rejected.

Can one get a copy of this recommendation?

Searching …

No parecer, o vice-procurador-geral eleitoral, Francisco Xavier Pinheiro Filho, analisa os pontos que fundamentam a indicação do órgão de controle do TSE pela desaprovação das contas do partido.

The assistant electoral attorney-general, Pinheiro Filho, ticks off the points that provide the basis for the recommendation.

Sobre a realização de gastos em momento anterior à abertura de conta bancária específica, o vice-procurador afirma “não ser crível admitir que os candidatos somente iniciassem a preparação de sua respectiva campanha a partir da abertura de conta bancária específica, quando mais se tratar de campanha de âmbito nacional”.

On the expenditure of money prior to the opening of a bank account for the campaign, he said “it is not credible to think that the candidates only began their campaigning after opening the bank account, especially given that this was a national campaign.

Ele lembra que a legislação eleitoral não proíbe a contratação antecipada de serviços, mas “tão somente” a realização de gastos antes da abertura da conta. “Com relação à realização de despesas sem identificação da documentação fiscal hábil, tampouco mostra-se viável a aprovação das contas”, diz o procurador.

He recalls that elections laws does not forbid prior contracting of services, but “only” can make payments after opening an account. “As to expenditures that lack the appropriate documentation, this also does not make approving the accounts appear viable,” he said.

And which expenditures were those?

Can I get a spreadsheet?

Segundo Pinheiro Filho, o PSDB alegou que a maioria dos fornecedores não estaria obrigada a emitir nota fiscal e tem “certa razão” em relação aos escritórios de advocacia. “Por outro lado, percebe-se a existência de serviços nos quais deveria ter sido emitida a respectiva nota fiscal”.

Pinheiro said the PSDB argued that most of its suppliers were not obliged to issue documentation and have a “certain [?]” with respect to law firms. “On the other hand, the existence of services for which documentation should have been issued was also observed.”

And that is all the Folha has to report.

And the Folha is about the only paper reporting it, except for Extra of Rio de Janeiro, in an even briefer not.

Someone says the numbers do not add up.

Not a single “and what numbers might those be?”

After all the sturm und drang over how campaign finance would be controlled “with an iron fist in a velvet glove,” and all the rhetoric about “transparency” and the moral crusade against corrupição, that is all you get to read about the matter. Weird.

If the accounts really turn out not to add up, is Transparency Brazil’s Às Claras project, which reflects the disputed numbers, really an example of transparency?

Count no bean counted until the count has been audited.

That Web site design, by the way, cuts off the list of donor names so that I cannot read some of them. (Work around: Reduce font size.)

Biggest individual donor to the party listed: Ronaldo Cezar Coelho of Rio, a banker and former candidate for governor and senator.

Biggest corporate donor to Alckmin’s campaign: “CGC Invalid.”

Nearly $8 million.

The “CGC” being the corporate donor’s federal tax ID.

Does that mean Alckmin’s largest donor was “unknown”?

Second: Banco Itaú, with a little under R$4 million.

It gave R$3.5 million to Lula, whose biggest donor was an orange-juice company, Sucocitrico Cutrale.

Smallest contributor to Lula: MARCELO ATIQUE, who gave R$1.

I keep waiting for them to put an asterisk beside those numbers, like the one beside Roger Maris’ single-season home-run record.


Alckmin the Harvard scholarship man

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s