Presidential candidate Aecio Neves (centre) of the Brazilian Social Democratic Party waves to supporters as former soccer star Ronaldo (left) look on at a campaign rally in Osasco near Sao Paulo.

AFP/Sao Paolo

Brazil’s presidential hopefuls want the public to fund their campaigns to reduce their reliance on multi-millionaire donors and protect them from corruption allegations.

But analysts warn that a culture of rich players paying for influence is just too ingrained in Brazil, despite legal attempts to do away with it.

Ahead of the October 5 vote, incumbent Dilma Rousseff is running neck-and-neck with environmentalist rival Marina Silva. The pair is expected to face a run-off on October 26.

But when it comes to battling for bucks, the Rousseff camp is out in front of Silva’s by a factor of around four to one.

Construction firms such as Andrade Gutierrez, which won a slew of contracts for this year’s World Cup, are at the forefront of donors to the ruling Workers Party.

Such arrangements leave the firms and their preferred candidates open to accusations of paying cash for favors, and contribute to the jaded Brazilian public’s dim view of politicians.

The potential reward for self-interested donors is handsome - recent US studies show the gain for firms specializing in public works as worth more than eight times what they donate.

In a recent televised debate, Rousseff and Silva backed the idea of publicly-funded campaigns - yet corporations still provide some 90% of their donations.

Silva’s critics say she presents herself as supporting a “new” kind of politics while enjoying backing from Itau banking heiress Maria Alice Setubal.

Rousseff has accused her rival of wanting to put Brazil’s interests in the hands of the banks, but Silva says it was her opponent who received most Itau cash in 2010.

Brazil’s Supreme Court has attempted to bring the gravy train to a halt with a proposal to make future electoral contributions by business unconstitutional.

But David Fleischer, professor of political science at Brasilia University, said the move will fail because politicians will not back the dismantling of a system benefiting them.

“Businesses, especially construction firms, make huge contributions to benefit from even fatter contracts and cost overruns,” Fleischer told AFP, declaring himself “not very optimistic” about major change.

Claudio Weber Abramo, who heads the Transparencia Brasil watchdog, expressed fears that if private donations were prohibited, more cash would be paid under the table and off the books.

“Changes should be introduced. The most important one is limiting private donations to a fixed value,” rather than the current two% of revenue ceiling, Abramo told AFP.

Greg Michener of the Getulio Vargas Foundation scoffed at talk of reform.

“No congressman wants to reform something he benefits from. The current system is essentially good for large companies, which can give a huge amount of money,” Michener told AFP.

Silva’s environmentalist credentials - she stood for the Green Party in 2010, coming third - are a concern for powerful agribusiness interests and that could weigh her down in the donations race.

“If Marina isn’t willing to play the political game she could be in trouble,” Michener said. “Money, positions, influence - it’s a dirty game.”

Politicians from smaller parties want change, noting that just three firms have provided 39% of overall financing to date.

The trio includes OAS, Andrade Gutierrez and JBS, the world’s biggest meat producer.

Gil Castello Branco, of the Contas Abertas (Open Accounts) group, said the system is skewed towards big business.

The biggest donor, JBS, injected a reported 120mn reais ($50mn) to the campaign, OAS 80mn and minerals firm Vale 40mn.

“Donations have hit a billion reais, but 19 firms account for 500mn. This shows economic clout equates to electoral clout in Brazil,” Branco said.

Voters see politicians as out to feather their own nests and the mood has been further soured by a huge kickbacks investigation at state-owned oil giant Petrobras.

Brazil’s electoral tribunal called for an “urgent overhaul” of campaign financing in 2008.

Brazil’s preparations for hosting this year’s World Cup only bolstered the trend, with winning bidders increasing donations several hundred-fold for the elections.

Eduardo Jorge of the Green Party said he was the only presidential candidate not taking company cash and urged “more rational campaigns that are closer to the people.”

Jose Maria de Almeida, presidential candidate of the fringe United Socialist Workers’ Party, said industrial patronage weakens democracy. “It’s a campaign taking place under very unequal conditions - the electoral process is very anti-democratic. It’s David against Goliath,” he said in an interview.

Leading donor firms declined to comment.

Odebrecht says in its code of conduct that “electoral contributions, made in compliance with applicable law, can strengthen democracy.”

Rousseff out to regulate media ownership

Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff says she will pursue media regulation if she returns for a second term, seeking to boost pluralism without influencing editorial content, media reports said yesterday.

A media bill has been in the offing since Rousseff took office in January 2011, and she told a meeting of mainly pro-government bloggers late Friday she intends to move the issue forward if she sees off nearest challenger, environmentalist Marina Silva, at the polls.

Rousseff said her intention is not to influence content, but rather to break down an “asymmetrical” concentration of media ownership that she regards as harmful.

She insisted the government would not lean on media to influence what they publish. “To regulate content is something for dictatorships,” said Rousseff, who said the government wanted to work on financial regulation to “prevent oligopolistic relationships coming about.”

Brazil’s media groups, widely censored under the 1964-85 military dictatorship, are for the most part in the hands of influential, wealthy families.

Most major news outlets are regularly critical of Rousseff and her leftist Workers Party administration.