A public hearing convened by the Chief Electoral Court (TSE) chairman Edson Fashin to discuss the impact of the General Data Protection Act (LGPD) on the dissemination of information about candidates turned into a duel between political parties and suffrage associations against advocates of transparency. The outcome of the debate may limit the right to access records, such as assets declared by politicians in elections.
On the one hand, it advocates limiting the content of the data and the period during which they are currently available on the TSE electronic platform for public consultation. At the other extreme, the struggle is to make information public. One of the central points of discussion is the list of property declared by the candidates, which may have a reduced level of detail.
The disclosure is made so that the voter knows the profile of those who are going to vote. The list of information covers the court records of the selected competitor. Today you can find out, for example, whether a candidate is responding to criminal prosecution or bad faith actions. The voter may also have access to the assets of a politician who is required to declare everything they have in their name, even money kept in cash at home. This information makes it possible to compare the evolution of a candidate’s assets throughout his political career.
‘SENSITIVE’
Among the parties represented in Congress, only PDT and MDB participated in the discussions. Both parties have defended in court limiting the period of public access to information about candidates for public office, or even limiting data such as candidates’ addresses on the grounds that they reveal secret areas.
National PDT lawyer Walber Agra argued that release of the tapes in question should be limited to the election period, as unrestricted access would embarrass candidates and put their lives at risk. For him, the address would be an example of information that must be hidden for security.
“Can anyone be accused of being a politician and rich? Of course not,” he said. “The IRS has all this data. So why advertise it? Does this mean that in order to be a politician, you have to pay with exposure?” he added.
TERM
MDB lawyer Eduardo Toledo defended that personal details such as RG, CPF and address should be withheld for personal security reasons. He also called for a time limit on the disclosure of campaign donations and spending.
“Where you have spent and what you have spent on is something that is not checked very much once the nominations are registered,” he stated. However, candidates’ accounts serve for later scrutiny when a politician becomes involved in criminal investigations related to donations received by him or expenditures he made during the campaign.
According to Katya Brembatti of the Right to Information Forum, the outcome of the discussion can be crucial in assessing the eligibility of candidates for public office. “If this pressure from the LGPD continues, we will have a setback,” he said.
On the other hand, the Brazilian Academy of Electoral and Political Law (Abradep) has advocated the restriction of information such as the Candidate Registration Application (RRC), where basic candidate data such as email and telephone is collected. The organization also requested that the full address where the competitors’ assets are located and the names of their respective parents, as well as the CPF, be withheld from the reference certificates.
The TSE has also set a date for when it will make a decision on the matter.
The information is taken from the newspaper. State of Sao Paulo.
