For my final project in Political Science I had to choose someone in Politics and see where there financing came from. In America the financial information seem to be much
clearer and deliberative, while in my country things are less
explicit, which gives room to a lot of speculations. The professor gave the
option of researching about our own country, and I ended up deciding
to do that, due specially to the current events that are going on in Brazil. Many controversies are being brought up in this years
presidential election in Brazil, since what was known to be the
“workers party” 'PT' ended up being capital intensive and
following neoliberal ideology rather then democratically favoring
societies demands and being progressive, which is what we expect from a Workers Party. The party is being part of major scandals on
corruption meaning both tax evasion and money laundering, specially
due to the World Cup that took place earlier this year, and to the
Olympic Games that Brazil will host in 2016. When researching the
financial contributions to Dilma Rouseff, Brazil's re-elected
president under PT, it was clear that the major contributions
received by herself and her party come from entities that are somehow
tied with Construction, due to the major projects supported by her in
the making of the World Cup. Also, currently in the Supreme Court of
Brazil, the nation's most important company, Petrobras, is also being
investigated due to campaign finance and payola to politics and
political party’s in a scheme of corruption and money laundering
that moved R$ 10 billion reais.
The scheme that is now in the Supreme Court of Brazil is called
'Lava Jato' or 'jet wash' comes from a cartel of large contractors
(OAS, Odebrecht, Engevix...) that combined prices for Construction
projects for Petrobras, but the contracts were overrated. Part of the
money from the super over billing was distributed among executives
within Petrobras and people that supported the scheme. Payola's were
passed out in different percentages to three of the major political
party's PT, PMDB and PP, this money was supposedly to finance
electoral campaigns in 2010, the first election of Dilma. Among the
main contracts that are being investigated are three refineries, one
in Pernambuco, one in Rio, and one in the US, the Pasadena Refinery,
which seem to also be a scheme that generated a loss of US$ 792
million dolars to Petrobras. The question of private investment in
electoral campaign is a hazy topic, since when critically analyzed it
is clear that firms don't vote, and therefore they shouldn't
contribute to elections.
The contractor firms that outset the whole scheme are among the
largest firms of Brazil, and contributed largely to the re-election
of president Dilma. I made an illustration of the share of
investments that were injected into president Rousseff and her
presidential campaign:
The
electoral campaign for president Dilma Rousseff (PT) raised R$ 350.9
million and spent R$ 350.5 million. Among the corporations that
donated the most are the food processing company and frigorific JBS,
the construction company Andrade Gutierrez and OAS, which are
involved in the 'jet wash' operation done by Federal police that
investigates corruption and payola scheme in Petrobras. The amount
donated by the major firms are respectively JBS donating R$48
million, following OAS R$51 million, Andrade Gutierrez R$27 million ,
Odebrecht R$18 million and Bradesco bank R$8.2 million; The major
contributors are JBS and OAS.
JBS
S.A. is a Brazilian company that is the largest (by sales) food
processing company in the world, producing factory processed beef,
chicken and pork, and also selling by-products from the processing of
these meats. The company has 150 industrial plants around the world.
Brazilian Development bank also known as National Bank for Economic
and Social Development injected a sum of around R$12.8 billion in JBS
by the emission of bonds and stocks bought from the company to
promote internationalization and reduce informality since 2007. The
relationship of the government injecting a lump sum of capital into
the firm, and in contrast the firm providing liquid capital to
finance campaign is a characteristics of politics, and might be what
took place in regards to the major contribution that was privately
done from JBS to Dilma Rouseff.
OAS
is a Brazilian corporation that works in several countries in the
area of civil engineering and infrastructure. The corporation manages
three stadiums in Brasil, which were part of the World Cup games and
went through major reforms to fit into FIFA's requirements. The
company is 85% owned by one person, Cesar Mata Pires 65 yo, founder
and executive president of the corporation. He is one of the
Brazilian's that entered the Forbes magazine for the first time this
year, due precisely to the reforms administered by his company, for
the World Cup and for the Olympic Games. The contractor firm OAS was
the major beneficiary among the firms that were binding procedures
for the events, and was largely criticized in the 2013 protests that
took place against the major government spending in the world cup
game requirements, the people claimed that the money that was
supposed to go to Education was going to the pockets of OAS.
Following the political ideology and scheme, the propensity given to
OAS to get the stadium reforms was payed back in campaign donations,
and ended up re-electing the president that preferred the highly
centralized corporation to take over the infrastructure of the events
held in Brazil. This firm together with the fourth major donor,
Odebrecht, were not only involved in the reforms to the events, but
are also involved in the money laundering scheme that is being
investigated.
The
2014 elections in Brazil was tough, even tough president Dilma
Rousseff got re-elected, it didn't seem a overall consensual
decision, even tough the world cup ended up being successful it
generated riots and social discontentment due to misuse of public
money to promote Fifa standards rather then the needs of society. The
other candidates that were running for president were also involved
in corruption schemes, and were majorly supported by some of the same
corporations not as intensive but somewhat similarly. Corporate
donations to politics always illustrate a double way strategy that
benefits or proceeds past rewards or benefits that were given in
return, it is a legitimate way for capital to flow and seem to
disregard the will of the people, which don't fit with the democratic
government that we are sold.
