Juliana highlighted that the rapporteur’s vote, although well-founded, could raise discussions and give rise to some questions.
What the rapporteur understood was the following: if we interpret that those expenses for the then presidential campaign can be understood as pre-campaign expenses for the Senate of Paraná, we will never again be able to have someone ‘demoved’ in an attempt to run for office and running for a position smaller. Another challenge posed in the vote is: when does the pre-campaign start? When did we start looking at expenses?
This vote is controversial, of course. Politically or technically criticisms can be made. It is a case that admits justification for both sides, but it was a very technical vote. Whoever opens a disagreement will have a lot of work.
I entered the trial very convinced: there is no way to defend spending like this in the pre-campaign. It is evident that it unbalances the dispute. Listening to the rapporteur’s vote, I confess that I left with a flea behind my ear. It’s a technical and well-cast vote, but it doesn’t mean it’s the only possibility. Some points can be questioned. It is possible to make an equally technical dissenting opinion that defends the opposite, without a shadow of a doubt. Juliana Bertholdi, lawyer
O UOL News airs from Monday to Friday in two editions: at 10am with a presentation by Fabíola Cidral and at 5pm with Diego Sarza. The program is always live.
When: Monday to Friday, 10am and 5pm.
