Corruption (Institutional)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Brian Benjamin’s Bribery Defense: He Got ‘No Personal Benefits’

      by

      The case against Brian Benjamin, who resigned as New York’s second-in-command last week, may hinge on whether political contributions in this case constituted a bribe.A federal prosecutor said on Monday that the government had issued more than 160 subpoenas for financial, phone and other records as part of its investigation into New York’s former lieutenant governor, Brian A. Benjamin, who resigned last week after being charged with bribery and fraud.At a hearing in Federal District Court in Manhattan, the prosecutor, Jarrod L. Schaeffer, suggested a trove of potential evidence of broad scope and complexity.On Monday morning alone, Mr. Schaeffer said, the government turned over about 160,000 pages of materials to Mr. Benjamin’s lawyers. The government had also executed about seven search warrants for email accounts and seized and searched cellphones, including one belonging to Mr. Benjamin, he said.The hearing was the first court appearance for Mr. Benjamin, 45, since his arrest a week ago in what the authorities have depicted as a brazen scheme to funnel illegal contributions to his previous political campaigns and to cover up the criminal activity.The arrest and Mr. Benjamin’s quick resignation sent tremors through Albany and created a political headache for Gov. Kathy Hochul, a fellow Democrat who handpicked him to be her second-in-command less than a year ago. Though no trial date was set on Monday, it now appears Mr. Benjamin’s legal saga could easily stretch beyond June’s Democratic primary and this fall’s general election.In a statement before Monday’s proceeding, lawyers for Mr. Benjamin said they were “shocked and dismayed that the prosecution would bring such flimsy and unwarranted charges against a sitting lieutenant governor, a mere 67 days before voting begins in the primary election.”Nicholas Biase, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office, declined to comment.In the courtroom, Mr. Benjamin’s lawyer, Barry H. Berke, signaled that he would argue that the government had overreached in a case that offers “lively legal issues.”Most recent political corruption cases, Mr. Berke told the judge, involved a government official receiving personal benefits like watches, cash and no-show jobs in exchange for an official action.“This case is different, because it’s based solely on political contributions — and no personal benefits,” Mr. Berke said.Mr. Benjamin, who has pleaded not guilty, has reshuffled his legal team since his arrest, bringing in Mr. Berke and Dani R. James of Kramer Levin as his new lawyers. Mr. Berke represented Bill de Blasio in several inquiries into the former mayor’s fund-raising practices and later served as a lead counsel for both impeachments of former President Donald J. Trump.Prosecutors have said that Mr. Benjamin used his power, while he was a member of the State Senate, to direct $50,000 in state funds to a charity run by a Harlem real estate developer, Gerald Migdol. In return, Mr. Migdol orchestrated thousands of dollars in illegal campaign contributions to Mr. Benjamin’s failed campaign in 2021 for New York City comptroller and his State Senate campaign, the authorities said.What to Know About Lt. Gov. Brian BenjaminCard 1 of 3Who is Brian Benjamin? More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Senator Elizabeth Warren: Democrats Can Win if We Keep Our Word

      by

      Democrats are the party of working people. Ahead of the 2020 election, we advanced ideas and plans that we believed would, in ways big and small, make our democracy and our economy work better for all Americans. Across this country, voters agreed with us — and gave us a majority in Washington so that we could deliver on those promises.Republican senators and broken institutions have blocked much of that promised progress. Now Republicans are betting that a stalled Biden agenda won’t give Democrats enough to run on in the midterm elections — and they might be right. Despite pandemic relief, infrastructure investments and the historic Supreme Court confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson, we promised more — and voters remember those promises.Republicans want to frame the upcoming elections to be about “wokeness,” cancel culture and the “militant left wing.” Standing up for the inherent dignity of everyone is a core American value, and Democrats are proud to do that every day. While Republican politicians peddle lies, fear and division, we should use every single one of the next 200 days or so before the election to deliver meaningful improvements for working people.Democrats win elections when we show we understand the painful economic realities facing American families and convince voters we will deliver meaningful change. To put it bluntly: if we fail to use the months remaining before the elections to deliver on more of our agenda, Democrats are headed toward big losses in the midterms.Time is running short. We need to finalize a budget reconciliation deal, making giant corporations pay their share to fund vital investments in combating climate change and lowering costs for families, which can advance with only 50 Senate votes. Other priorities can be done with the president’s executive authority. It’s no secret that I believe we should abolish the filibuster. But if Republicans want to use it to block policies that Americans broadly support, we should also force them to take those votes in plain view.Let’s begin with corruption. For years, Americans have identified corrupt government officials as a top concern. And they’re right: to tackle the urgent challenges we face — climate change, income inequality, systemic injustice — we must root out corruption. To start cleaning up government, members of Congress and their spouses shouldn’t be allowed to own or trade individual stocks, which the vast majority of voters support banning, according to multiple polls. Whether you’re a Republican senator or the Democratic speaker of the House, it is obvious to the American people that they should not be allowed to trade individual stocks and then vote on laws that affect those companies. I have the strongest plan and the only bipartisan bill in the Senate to get it done.We can also act quickly to rein in costs for middle-class families. In the very short term, that means stopping companies from jacking up prices to boost their profits. Price increases are driven by many factors, including pandemic disruptions to global supply chains and Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine. But when the Kroger chief executive, Rodney McMullen, said “a little bit of inflation is always good in our business,” it’s no surprise that, by a margin of two-to-one, American voters don’t buy the explanation that companies are just passing along costs. Instead, they blame corporations for raising prices to boost their own profits. Even Fed Chair Jerome Powell, a conservative Republican, acknowledged that giant corporations raise prices simply “because they can.”The president deserves enormous credit for advancing an ambitious agenda to promote competition and appointing effective regulators to enforce our antitrust laws, and it’s time for congressional Democrats to have his back. According to Data for Progress surveys, eight in 10 Americans believe Congress should pass laws to reinvigorate competition and three-quarters strongly believe that oil and gas companies should not make gobs of money off this energy crisis. Beefing up regulators’ authority to end price-gouging, breaking up monopolies, and passing a windfall profits tax is a good start. Only in Washington, where America’s biggest companies spend billions to drown out reality, are these controversial ideas. Across America, these are popular plans.We can stand up to the armies of lobbyists and P.R. flacks and tackle tax loopholes for the rich and powerful. About two-thirds of likely American voters — including a majority of Republicans — say it’s time for billionaires to pay more in taxes. Nearly three-quarters of Americans want to put an end to wildly profitable corporations paying nothing or little in federal income taxes (yes, Amazon, I’m looking at you) and put into place a global minimum corporate tax. And a majority of Americans would like to use some of those tax revenues to invest in clean energy, affordable child care, and universal pre-K.That’s a big legislative agenda, but it isn’t big enough. We also need to use every tool of the presidency to deliver for working people.For example, by a margin of more than two-to-one, Americans support providing some student loan debt cancellation — an action the president could take entirely on his own. Doing so would lift the economic outlook for too many borrowers who still weren’t able to get a college diploma, for the millions of female borrowers who shoulder about two-thirds of all student loan debt, and for Black and Hispanic borrowers, a higher percentage of whom take on debt to attend college compared to white students, and have a harder time paying it off after school. With the stroke of a pen, the president could make massive strides to close gender and racial wealth gaps.And he can do more. Decisive action on everything from lowering prescription drug prices to ensuring that more workers are eligible for overtime pay can be executed by the president alone, using the authority already given to him by existing laws, without rounding up 50 Senate votes.Like many Americans, I’m frustrated by our failure to get big things done — things that are both badly needed and very popular with all Americans. While Republican politicians obstruct many efforts to improve people’s lives and many swear loyalty to the Big Lie, the urgency of the next election bears down on us.Democrats cannot bow to the wisdom of out-of-touch consultants who recommend we simply tout our accomplishments. Instead, Democrats need to deliver more of the president’s agenda — or else we will not be in the majority much longer.Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) is a United States senator for Massachusetts.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      A Subway Attack That Shook New York City

      by

      The gunman who injured 23 in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, escaped, but the police identified a person of interest.Good morning. It’s Wednesday. Two stories will dominate the conversation today: the attack in the subway that left at least 23 people injured, 10 from gunfire, and the resignation of Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin, hours after he was arrested on corruption charges.Dave Sanders for The New York TimesA man dressed in a neon-orange vest and a green construction helmet strapped on a gas mask, released two smoke grenades and began firing a gun he was carrying.It was the beginning of an attack that rattled the city — a mass shooting that turned the subway into another edgy symbol of a city worn thin by violence.Videos from the subway car where the smoke bomb went off and the shots rang out showed commuters running and just trying to breathe as they pulled their sleeves and their collars across their faces. My colleague Sarah Maslin Nir writes that there were a few panicked screams before the train pulled into the next stop, the doors opened and riders who could escape poured out, gasping in the smoke.“There’s been a shooting,” a woman said as she fled. Behind her a man limped out of the smoky subway car. Other passengers collapsed once they made it out, while in the car, wounded passengers lay on the blue seats or on the floor.The gunman — who had been on the train for eight stops, according to the police — apparently escaped in the maelstrom on the platform. At least one surveillance camera that could have captured the gunman was not working, Mayor Eric Adams said. The camera malfunction appeared to hamper the search as the police fanned out through Sunset Park. Police officials said they were looking for a “person of interest,” Frank R. James, a 62-year-old man who had rented a U-Haul van they found several miles from the station where the attack occurred. They said the van had been rented in Philadelphia.In the station, they said, they had found a nine-millimeter semiautomatic handgun, a hatchet and a bag with fireworks. Keechant Sewell, the police commissioner, added that there were online “postings possibly connected to the man where he mentions homelessness, he mentions New York and he does mention Mayor Adams.” As a result, she said, the mayor’s security detail was being tightened “in an abundance of caution”Adams, confined to Gracie Mansion after testing positive for the coronavirus this week, said in radio and television interviews that the police presence in the subways would be doubled and that officers assigned to day shifts would work into the evening. He said on NY1 that the shooting “really elevates the conversation” about the “crisis that is playing across our country” involving the proliferation of guns.It was not the first time in his 100-plus days in office that Adams had ordered more police attention on the subways. He announced plans in January to order hundreds of street-level patrol officers to inspect subway stations regularly and to redeploy officers from desk jobs onto the trains. Adams also announced plans to stop homeless people from sheltering on trains and platforms a few weeks after a woman was pushed to her death in front of a train.But crime has continued to increase. For January and February, felony assaults were up 10 percent over the same period last year, and for many passengers, safety is a paramount concern. In a recent survey by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the agency that runs the transit system, fear of crime and harassment were the top factors cited by people who said they no longer take the subway.On Tuesday, Marjorie Michele, a nursing technician from Ocean Hill, Brooklyn, took an Uber home from work. She said the subways were still snarled from the attack, but riding above ground also felt safer.“It could have been me,” she said. “It could have been any of my children.”WeatherIt’s a mostly cloudy day in the high 60s. Expect a slight chance of showers late at night when temps drop to the high 50s.alternate-side parkingIn effect today. Suspended tomorrow (Holy Thursday).The latest New York newsThe killing of a 12-year-old boy in East Flatbush reflected how a spike in shootings during the pandemic is complicating recovery in less affluent neighborhoods.A former lawyer and his husband filed a complaint against the city, saying they were denied insurance coverage because of a definition of infertility that excludes gay men.The “Fearless Girl” sculpture will continue to stand outside the New York Stock Exchange after city officials voted to extend the sculpture’s temporary permit.A lieutenant governor is indicted and resignsJefferson Siegel for The New York TimesOn his 216th day as the second-most powerful state official in New York, Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin resigned, hours after federal prosecutors unsealed an indictment accusing him of directing a corruption scheme. The charges included trading state funds for illegal donations to his past campaigns for the State Senate and New York City comptroller.The five-count indictment accused him of bribery, fraud and conspiracy in directing $50,000 in state funds to a nonprofit group controlled by a real estate developer, Gerald Migdol. In return, Migdol arranged for illegal contributions to go to Benjamin’s failed campaign for city comptroller last year. Benjamin was also accused of offering to help Migdol win a zoning variance if he gave $15,000 to a separate fund for State Senate Democrats.“This is a simple story of corruption,” Damian Williams, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, said at a news conference before Benjamin’s resignation was announced. “Taxpayer money for campaign contributions. A quid pro quo. This for that. That’s bribery, plain and simple.”Benjamin pleaded not guilty in Federal District Court in Lower Manhattan before his resignation and was released on $250,000 bond.The fallout for the governorThe case complicated this year’s campaign for Hochul. After Andrew Cuomo resigned in disgrace last summer, one of her first major decisions was to appoint Benjamin.Now that decision has become a potentially consequential liability as she runs for a four-year term. My colleague Luis Ferré-Sadurní writes that Democratic and Republican rivals are already sharpening their attacks.She can select a new lieutenant governor in the coming weeks, but it will be difficult to replace Benjamin on the Democratic primary ballot in June. Because he was designated as the Democratic Party’s nominee for lieutenant governor, election rules stipulate that his name could be removed at this point only if he were to move out of the state, die or run for another office.Benjamin left court without commenting on the case. He and his lawyers met with prosecutors last week, according to someone familiar with the matter, and Benjamin’s top aides were privately reassuring their allies that he expected to be cleared of wrongdoing.A charity gets $50,000 it did not ask forThe indictment said Benjamin had approached Migdol in March 2019, months before he announced his candidacy for comptroller, and that Migdol demurred, saying he needed to solicit the same potential donors for his charity, Friends of Public School Harlem.“Let me see what I can do,” Benjamin replied, according to the indictment. Then he arranged a $50,000 education grant for the charity that Migdol had not sought.Later, in a meeting in Benjamin’s office, Migdol handed over $25,000 in checks made out to Benjamin’s Senate campaign account. The prosecutors said he attempted to conceal his involvement by giving Benjamin checks drawn on the accounts of relatives or an L.L.C. he controlled. The indictment said Benjamin watched as Migdol, filling out campaign forms, signed the relatives’ names.The indictment also accused Benjamin of attempting a cover-up by falsifying campaign donation forms, misleading city authorities and giving incorrect information in a background check before he became lieutenant governor.What we’re readingLast month, our reporter Karen Zraick received a tip about elevator breakdowns at a high-rise residential building. It proved to be more than just griping.Curbed reported on four key landmarks in Little Ukraine in the East Village and how they reflect the community’s history.METROPOLITAN diaryLong tent dressDear Diary:A friend and I were on the subway to Brooklyn. We were standing and chatting, holding on to the pole at the end of the car.I was wearing a long tent dress from Marimekko. Since I am 6 feet tall, the dress presented as a large swath of fabric as I leaned on the pole.A seat next to us was empty, and construction worker in hard hat and work boots asked whether we would mind if he sat down. He said he had been injured at work that day.Of course, my friend and I said. We continued to chat as the train crossed the river. It was clear that the construction worker was eavesdropping on us.At a break in our conversation, he spoke.“Excuse me,” he said, “I hope you don’t mind me saying this, but that dress would look a lot better with a belt.”— Celia RodriguesIllustrated by Agnes Lee. Send submissions here and read more Metropolitan Diary here.Glad we could get together here. See you tomorrow. — J.B.P.S. Here’s today’s Mini Crossword and Spelling Bee. You can find all our puzzles here.Melissa Guerrero and Ed Shanahan contributed to New York Today. You can reach the team at nytoday@nytimes.com.Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Hochul Picked a Running Mate. Now She Has to Pick Another One.

      by

      Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin’s resignation in the face of a criminal indictment creates a major political test for Gov. Kathy Hochul.One of the first decisions Gov. Kathy Hochul had to make when she suddenly ascended to New York’s highest office last summer was a personnel one: Who would fill her previous role as lieutenant governor, becoming her second-in-command and running mate in the 2022 election?The search was relatively swift, with Ms. Hochul, a white Democrat from Buffalo, homing in on elected officials of color from downstate.She picked Brian Benjamin, a Black state senator from Harlem who was expected to help Ms. Hochul broaden her appeal in New York City, announcing her choice at a campaign-style rally in Upper Manhattan in August.The move came despite a string of ethics questions that had followed Mr. Benjamin and that centered on some dubious campaign finance practices during his time as senator and his unsuccessful run for city comptroller last year.On Tuesday, almost eight months later, that early decision turned into one of Ms. Hochul’s most potentially consequential political liabilities with her announcement that she had accepted Mr. Benjamin’s resignation after his arrest on federal corruption charges.“While the legal process plays out, it is clear to both of us that he cannot continue to serve as Lieutenant Governor,” Ms. Hochul said in a statement hours after Mr. Benjamin’s arrest. “New Yorkers deserve absolute confidence in their government, and I will continue working every day to deliver for them.” The criminal case against Mr. Benjamin could undermine the governor’s efforts to seek her first full term this year, and may be a campaign distraction as the Democratic primary in June nears. Ms. Hochul has led the field comfortably in early public polls, but Mr. Benjamin’s arrest and resignation could throw the race for both her office and his into flux, with Democratic and Republican rivals already sharpening their attacks.Ms. Hochul must now decide who will fill the lieutenant governor vacancy. It was unclear on Tuesday whether she would also seek to remove Mr. Benjamin from the Democratic ballot, an extremely complicated task because of the timing of his resignation and New York’s archaic election laws.But in a statement shortly after Mr. Benjamin’s resignation, Jay Jacobs, the state Democratic Party chairman, said he would “explore every option available to seek a replacement for Brian on the ticket.”The investigation into Mr. Benjamin’s activities had begun to dog Ms. Hochul weeks ago, just as she was negotiating the state budget, where she secured many of her favored policies related to public safety with his help.The governor had indicated just last week that Mr. Benjamin had her unwavering support, even as it became public that he had not told her while being vetted for the lieutenant governor post that his comptroller campaign had received subpoenas.“I have utmost confidence in my lieutenant governor,” Ms. Hochul said at an April 7 news conference at the State Capitol where Mr. Benjamin sat by her side as she announced the budget deal. “This is an independent investigation related to other people and he is fully cooperating. He is my running mate.”On Tuesday, Mr. Benjamin pleaded not guilty to five counts of bribery and fraud in Federal District Court in Manhattan.Most immediately, Mr. Benjamin’s arrest and resignation could upend the race for lieutenant governor. Under state law, neither arrest nor conviction prompt the removal of a candidate from a New York State ballot. Mr. Benjamin’s lawyers said on Tuesday that he had suspended his campaign, but it is too late for Mr. Benjamin to be easily removed from the ballot; the only way it could happen is if he were to leave the state, die or be nominated for a different office.Mr. Benjamin could be nominated for another office, but since petitioning deadlines have now passed for most positions, another elected official would most likely need to resign to create a vacancy for him. It is unclear whether Mr. Benjamin could sidestep that by running as an independent candidate.The primary contests for governor and lieutenant governor are conducted separately, raising the possibility that Mr. Benjamin could remain on the ballot and lose even if Ms. Hochul wins. That could force Ms. Hochul to run in the November general election with a Democratic running mate she had not chosen.Running against Mr. Benjamin are Ana Maria Archila, a progressive activist who has aligned herself with Jumaane Williams, the New York City public advocate, who is challenging Ms. Hochul from the left. Ms. Archila’s campaign sent an email to supporters on Tuesday asking for donations after news of Mr. Benjamin’s arrest broke, saying that “we need cleareyed, transparent and accountable leadership.”“I find it remarkable that the vetting process wasn’t more vigorous,” Ms. Archila said in an interview earlier on Tuesday, questioning Mr. Benjamin’s ability to fulfill his duties but stopping short of calling for his resignation. “It says that she wasn’t careful or thoughtful in prioritizing the public’s trust in the way she said she would.”Representative Thomas R. Suozzi, a moderate Democrat from Long Island who is running against Ms. Hochul in the primary, issued his own statement earlier in the day, along with Diana Reyna, his informal running mate for lieutenant governor, saying that Mr. Benjamin’s arrest was “an indictment on Kathy Hochul’s lack of experience and poor judgment.”Representative Lee Zeldin, a Long Island Republican and the party’s nominee for governor, criticized Ms. Hochul on Tuesday for her “terrible judgment” in choosing Mr. Benjamin, who he described as “a bad pick.”“When this corruption surfaced, Hochul tripled down,” Mr. Zeldin wrote on Twitter. “She owns this … all of it! Terrible judgment!”Mr. Benjamin’s arrest appeared to blindside Ms. Hochul, disrupting her schedule just as she was increasing her time on the campaign trail this week. The arrest coincided with a mass shooting at a Brooklyn subway station, and Ms. Hochul had to call off a union fund-raiser in Manhattan and a news conference on Long Island.Early in the day, as Ms. Hochul weighed Mr. Benjamin’s future, the Republican leaders in the State Legislature, as well as some Democratic state lawmakers, had called on her to demand his resignation.“Kathy Hochul and Senate Democrats might tolerate this corruption, but New Yorkers don’t and neither do I,” said Rob Ortt, the Republican leader in the State Senate.What to Know About Lt. Gov. Brian BenjaminCard 1 of 3Who is Brian Benjamin? More

    • 50 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Who Is Yoon Suk-yeol? 

      by

      As a star prosecutor, Yoon Suk-yeol, the leading conservative candidate, helped imprison two former presidents as well as the head of Samsung and a former chief justice of the country’s Supreme Court on charges of corruption.Now, Mr. Yoon hopes to become president himself by appealing to South Koreans who are deeply dissatisfied with the outgoing president, Moon Jae-in.Mr. Moon’s government and his Democratic Party have been rocked by a series of scandals that exposed ethical lapses and policy failures around sky-high housing prices, growing income inequality and a lack of social mobility.“Up until recently, I had never imagined entering politics,” Mr. Yoon said in a recent campaign speech. “But the people put me in the position I am in now, on a mission to remove the incompetent and corrupt Democratic Party from power.”Mr. Yoon was born in Seoul on Dec. 18, 1960. His father was a college professor and his mother a former teacher. A graduate of the Seoul National University, he became a prosecutor in 1994 after passing the bar exam on his ninth try. He eventually made his name as an anti-corruption investigator who didn’t flinch under political pressure while going after some of the country’s richest and most powerful.“I don’t owe my loyalty to anyone,” Mr. Yoon famously said during a parliamentary hearing in 2013.It was under Mr. Moon that Mr. Yoon became a household name in South Korea, first as senior investigator and then as prosecutor general. He spearheaded the president’s anti-corruption campaign, investigating the links between Samsung, South Korea’s most powerful conglomerate, and two former conservative presidents, Park Geun-hye and her predecessor, Lee Myung-bak.But then Mr. Yoon started clashing with Mr. Moon’s government, as prosecutors under his leadership began investigating allegations of wrongdoing involving the president’s political allies, such as Cho Kuk, a former justice minister.The conservative opposition, which had earlier vilified Mr. Yoon as a political henchman, suddenly began calling him a hero. Last year, he stepped down as prosecutor general and won the presidential nomination from the main conservative People Power Party. If elected, he would be the first former prosecutor to become president in South Korea.Although this presidential bid is Mr. Yoon’s first try at elected office, he has a powerful support base among conservative South Koreans who want to punish Mr. Moon’s government for its perceived policy failures, yet have no confidence in the current leadership of the People Power Party.“Yoon is like Trump,” said Kim Hyung-joon, a political scientist at Myongji University in Seoul. “He is an outsider running to shake up the establishment.” More

    • 75 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      ‘Dark Money’ Suddenly Dominates Australia’s Election

      by

      Chinese financing, unreported donations, payouts from coal barons: The new political season is shining an unaccustomed light on a culture of opacity.SYDNEY, Australia — When Dr. Ken Coghill served in the Victoria state legislature in the early 1980s, he joined a movement to reform Australia’s campaign finance system, which allowed donations to slosh through politics, with donors mostly able to hide their identities and contributions.Dr. Coghill, a Labor leader at the time, said he was outraged because the so-called dark money undermined the principle of all voters being equal, giving unidentified donors and their chosen candidates or parties “a very considerable advantage.”Nearly 40 years later, Dr. Coghill is still outraged, because little has changed. But now, that culture of cashed-up secrecy is suddenly defining the start of the federal election campaign that will determine whether the current conservative prime minister remains in power.With an election due by the end of May, Australians are not being treated to policy debates but rather accusations of shadowy Chinese financing, failures to report large donations, and payouts to climate-change warriors from coal barons.“The flow of money is increasing, but also the political culture is becoming eroded,” said Han Aulby, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity. “There’s a sense that if you can get away with things, you do it.”Compared with the United States, Australia’s campaign season is shorter and less costly, as is the case for many countries with parliamentary democracies. But even among its peers, such as Canada and New Zealand, Australia is a laggard on campaign finance regulation. Research from the Center for Public Integrity shows that over the past two decades, the source of nearly $1 billion in party income has been hidden.Some scholars argue that Australia’s opacity reflects a distinct set of cultural idiosyncrasies: a belief that transparency is not an obvious social good and a sense that those in power should decide what the public needs to know.A view of the Sydney waterfront. A majority of Australians believe corruption in politics is a common occurrence.Isabella Moore for The New York Times“The prevailing view in Australia is still that the government owns the information — it is not held on behalf of the citizens — and if people want it, it should not be automatically available,” said Johan Lidberg, a media professor at Monash University. “That sits at the very core here. We haven’t shifted away from that yet.”The money fight this time follows a period of increased public concern about corruption.In a country far wealthier than it used to be, where infrastructure money has been known to flow toward political friends, and where government secrecy keeps expanding, polls show overwhelming support for an anti-corruption body at the federal level. A majority of Australians now believe corruption is a common occurrence.The center-right Liberal Party of Prime Minister Scott Morrison had promised to do something about that after winning the last election, in 2019, but never followed through. Now, with support for his government’s pandemic management in decline, he has begun using dark money as a theme on which to attack his political opponents.The effort started with accusations of money and support from China.This month, Mike Burgess, head of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization, the country’s main domestic intelligence agency, warned in his annual threat assessment that the authorities had foiled a foreign interference plot involving a wealthy individual who “maintained direct and deep connections with a foreign government and its intelligence agencies.”Mr. Morrison at a campaign rally in Sydney during the last election in 2019. His campaign pledge to create a federal agency to crack down on corruption has so far gone unfulfilled.Mick Tsikas/EPA, via ShutterstockThe “puppeteer,” he said, had hired someone in Australia and set the person up with hundreds of thousands of dollars procured from an offshore bank account.Speculation immediately turned to Beijing. The next day, in Parliament, Australia’s defense minister, Peter Dutton, said the Chinese Communist Party had chosen to support Anthony Albanese, the Labor party leader, “as their pick.” Mr. Morrison followed up by calling Labor Party leaders “Manchurian candidates.”Critics called the remarks scaremongering. The Labor Party has said it did nothing wrong, and Mr. Burgess has pushed back against the partisan attacks.“Attempts at political interference are not confined to one side of politics,” he said last week.Nor are accusations about hidden money.Zali Steggall, a political independent who entered Parliament in 2019 after defeating Tony Abbott, a former prime minister, with a campaign focused on fighting climate change, has run into her own problems. An Australian Electoral Commission review found that she did not correctly report a $100,000 donation in 2019 from the family trust of a former coal company executive.The commission’s review found that the gift — the largest single donation she received — was not reported because after the check had been received, the money was split into eight separate contributions that were under the $13,800 disclosure threshold.Ms. Steggall called it “a rookie mistake.” She argued that previous investments in coal should not prevent someone from donating to candidates supporting a greener future, and insisted that she did not know the donation had been misreported. Corrected last year, it has come to light now as several independent candidates are threatening to unseat Liberal incumbents in part with money from centralized issue-oriented organizations.Zali Steggall, a political independent who is a member of Parliament, failed to correctly report a $100,000 donation in 2019 from the family trust of a former coal company executive.Lukas Coch/EPA, via ShutterstockThe Steggall campaign’s financial controller is now a director of one such group, Climate 200.“What this highlights is there are a lot of people who are happy to throw stones, but they’re often in glass houses,” Mr. Morrison said.What it actually shows, according to advocates for a more transparent approach, is how the current system has been encouraging a spiral of misbehavior.Disclosures of donations for federal elections are still released just once a year, in unsearchable scans of documents riddled with errors and omissions. Supporters of reform have called for real-time reporting and lower thresholds for reporting donations.“This is an issue that has bubbled along since the early 1970s,” said Dr. Coghill, who is a professor of government at Swinburne University of Technology, as well as a veterinarian.“In a way, that’s a reflection of Australia’s relative isolation,” he added. “We don’t have frequent contact with people in other countries that do have more rigorous regimes in place.”But Ms. Aulby, who founded the Center for Public Integrity in 2016, said that many Australians were starting to question what happens in the shadows where favors and financing intertwine.She said one of the most blatant tactics to hide money involved “associated entities” — essentially shell companies that distribute donations.Both major parties rely on them. Labor, for example, received 33 percent of its income from 1998 to 2021 from associated entities, for a total of more than $120 million.Campaign posters outside a polling station in Melbourne in 2019. Both major parties rely on shell companies to hide donation money.Asanka Brendon Ratnayake for The New York TimesThe Liberals brought in even more from their associated entities — about $140 million in the same period, according to the center, amounting to 42 percent of all the party’s reported income.“They do a lot of business, but I don’t know who their directors are or if they and their money are from the resource or banking industry,” Ms. Aulby said.The consequences of that approach, however, are becoming more visible. Last month, Transparency International recorded a drop for Australia in its annual corruption index, giving the country its lowest score since the organization adopted its current measurements in 2012.Polls in Australia also show growing alarm. That has become especially true after the current government assigned public funds to sports infrastructure projects in districts that it needed to win in the last election, even when no one applied for the grant money.In those cases, the Morrison government stonewalled and refused to release its final internal report on what happened with more than $70 million in grants. The minister in charge of them was demoted only temporarily.“Scandal after scandal is happening without any consequence,” Ms. Aulby said.But once the accusations begin, the cycle can be hard to stop. Last week, Mr. Morrison was busy attacking opponents and their supposed financiers; this week his own coalition partner was being dragged through the media for failing to disclose a payment of 1 million Australian dollars ($721,000) from an influential property owner in the capital, Canberra.“There needs to be some consequences — electoral consequences, because there aren’t other consequences happening,” Ms. Aulby said. “I hope that voters have that in mind in the upcoming election.” More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      United Auto Workers reformers prevail in vote to choose president by direct election.

      by

      Members of the United Automobile Workers union have voted decisively to change the way they choose their president and other top leaders, opting to select them through a direct vote rather than a vote of delegates to a convention, as the union has done for decades.The votes on the election reform proposal were cast in a referendum open to the union’s roughly one million current workers and retirees and due by Monday morning. Nearly 64 percent of the roughly 140,000 members who cast valid ballots favored a direct-election approach, according to a court-appointed independent monitor of the union.“It is time to move forward on behalf of the over one million members and retirees of the U.A.W. in solidarity,” the union said in a statement.The referendum was required by a consent decree approved this year between the union and the Justice Department, which had spent years prosecuting a series of corruption scandals involving the embezzlement of union funds by top officials and illegal payoffs to union officials from the company then known as Fiat Chrysler.More than 15 people were convicted as a result of the investigations, including two recent U.A.W. presidents.Reformers within the U.A.W. have long backed the one member, one vote approach, arguing that it would lead to greater accountability, reducing corruption and forcing leaders to negotiate stronger contracts. A group called Unite All Workers for Democracy helped organize fellow members to support the change in the referendum.“The membership of our great union has made clear that they want to change the direction of the U.A.W. and return to our glory days of fighting for our members,” said Chris Budnick, a U.A.W. member at a Ford Motor plant in Louisville, Ky., who serves as recording secretary for the reform group, in a statement Wednesday evening. “I am so proud of the U.A.W. membership and their willingness to step up and vote for change.”David Witwer, an expert on union corruption at Pennsylvania State University at Harrisburg, said the experience of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which shifted from voting through convention delegates to direct election in 1991, after an anti-racketeering lawsuit by federal prosecutors, supported the reformers’ claims.Dr. Witwer said the delegate system allowed seemingly corrupt union leaders to stay in power because of the leverage they had over convention delegates, who were typically local union officials whom top leaders could reward or punish.“Shifting the national union election process from convention delegates to membership direct voting was pivotal in changing the Teamsters,” he said by email.At the U.A.W., leadership positions have been dominated for decades by members of the so-called Administration Caucus, a kind of political party within the union whose power the delegate system enabled.Some longtime U.A.W. officials credit the caucus with helping to elevate women and Black people to leadership positions earlier than the union’s membership would have directly elected them.But the caucus could be deeply insular. The Justice Department contended in court filings that Gary Jones, a former U.A.W. president who was sentenced to prison this year for embezzling union funds, used some of the money to “curry favor” with his predecessor, Dennis Williams, while serving on the union’s board.Union officials have said Mr. Williams, who was recently sentenced to prison as well, later backed Mr. Jones to succeed him, helping to ensure Mr. Jones’s ascent. More

    • 88 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Lula prepara un regreso. ¿Convencerá a Brasil?

      by

      El expresidente brasileño Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva ha logrado dejar atrás una serie de acusaciones de corrupción y encabeza la lucha por la presidencia del año entrante.RECIFE, Brasil — El antiguo limpiabotas que llegó a la presidencia dejó el cargo hace poco más de una década con la popularidad de una estrella de rock. Era la encarnación de una nación que parecía estar en la cúspide de la grandeza.La caída de ese presidente, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, y de su país, Brasil, fue igual de dramática. Un escándalo de corrupción lo llevó a la cárcel y puso de manifiesto las irregularidades y los errores de cálculo que contribuyeron a frenar una era de prosperidad, abatiendo a la mayor economía de América Latina y poniendo en marcha un periodo de turbulencias políticas.Ahora Lula, como todos lo conocen, ha vuelto.Una serie de victorias judiciales lo han liberado y le han devuelto su derecho a postularse a la presidencia, lo que le ha permitido a da Silva volver a argumentar que él es el único camino a seguir para una nación que lucha contra el aumento del hambre, la pobreza y una división política cada vez más profunda.“Tenemos total certeza de que es posible reconstruir el país”, afirmó recientemente.Personas sin hogar hacían fila para recibir alimentos de los voluntarios de un grupo religioso en Sao Paulo. La cantidad de personas que vivía en pobreza en Brasil se triplicó de 9,7 millones en 2020 a 27 millones en 2021.Mauricio Lima para The New York TimesUn retorno al poder sería un regreso sorprendente para Da Silva, de 76 años, cuya épica carrera política ha sido paralela al destino de Brasil. Empezó como líder sindical y alcanzó la fama con el movimiento que puso fin a la dictadura brasileña de 1964 a 1985. Después de perder tres veces las elecciones presidenciales, ganó en 2002 y condujo a la nación a un periodo de abundancia económica y prestigio internacional, cuando Brasil fue elegido para dar una fiesta al mundo como anfitrión de la Copa Mundial y los Juegos Olímpicos.Los votantes le dan una amplia ventaja en la contienda presidencial del año entrante, señal de que para millones de personas el recuerdo de un Brasil próspero y en ascenso tiene más peso que su recelo ante la corrupción endémica que empañó el legado de Da Silva.El cálido recibimiento que le dieron los presidentes de España y Francia en un viaje reciente a Europa dejó en claro que otros líderes también podrían sentir nostalgia por el Brasil de antaño.Pero lograr una victoria podría depender de su capacidad para reformular el relato de por qué Brasil se derrumbó de forma tan espectacular tras su presidencia.Aunque millones de brasileños salieron de la pobreza y la desigualdad bajo su mandato, muchos de los proyectos que Da Silva puso en marcha, según los críticos, eran insostenibles, suponían un despilfarro y estaban contaminados por la corrupción.“No hicieron lo que era necesario para el país, sino lo que era necesario para mantenerse en el poder”, comentó Marina Silva, exministra de Medio Ambiente del gobierno de Da Silva, que dimitió por desacuerdos con el enfoque de gobierno del presidente. “El fin justificaba los medios”.Marina Silva, exministra de Medio Ambiente del gabinete de Lula Da Silva, renunció en 2009 tras desacuerdos con el enfoque del presidente.Gabriela Portilho para The New York TimesDa Silva no asumió ninguna responsabilidad por la recesión ni por el enorme escándalo de sobornos que golpeó a Brasil durante años después de que dejara el cargo. Y los brasileños volcaron su ira contra la sucesora elegida personalmente por Da Silva, Dilma Rousseff, que fue destituida en 2016 por el traslado indebido de fondos públicos en un intento por maquillar el estado de la economía antes de su reelección.Dos años después, el país eligió a Jair Bolsonaro, un excapitán del ejército de extrema derecha que se presentó como el polo opuesto a Da Silva, alabando la dictadura y prometiendo mano dura contra la corrupción y el crimen.Ahora, Bolsonaro se enfrenta a un torrente de escándalos, su gobierno está envuelto en investigaciones, su popularidad disminuye, y Da Silva se presenta como la salvación de Brasil.Para entender el potencial de Da Silva, por qué se desintegró y si su regreso podría ofrecer la estabilidad y el crecimiento que los brasileños ansían, ayuda visitar una pequeña comunidad portuaria de pescadores artesanales que Da Silva soñaba con convertir en un próspero centro manufacturero.‘La industria naval brasileña ha llegado para quedarse’Trabajadores del puerto restauran un barco en el astillero Atlântico Sul como parte del proyecto Puerto Suape.Mauricio Lima para The New York TimesCuando Da Silva asumió el cargo en 2003, la economía brasileña había logrado frenar la inflación y disfrutaba de un auge de materias primas, lo que le daba al gobierno un grado de flexibilidad fiscal muy inusual. De inmediato puso en marcha ambiciosos planes para recompensar al noreste, su lugar de nacimiento y un bastión electoral que alberga a poco más de una cuarta parte de la población del país, pero casi la mitad de sus pobres.Hijo de trabajadores agrícolas analfabetos, Da Silva, que creció en una pequeña choza sin electricidad ni cañerías, vio la oportunidad de transformar a las familias como la suya invirtiendo a manos llenas en industrias generadoras de empleo.El Banco Nacional de Desarrollo Económico y Social, gestionado por el gobierno, autorizó un préstamo de 1900 millones de dólares para un ferrocarril de 1754 kilómetros que conectaría el corazón agrícola con dos puertos, uno de ellos justo al sur de Recife, la ciudad más grande del noreste y la capital del estado de Pernambuco.El astillero Atlântico Sul, visto desde la isla abandonada de Tatuoca, que fue privatizada y cuyos residentes fueron retirados de sus hogares por las obras en el proyecto portuario de Suape. Mauricio Lima para The New York TimesJunto a la zona portuaria de Recife —en el extremo oriental del continente, con fácil acceso a los mercados europeos y africanos— se iniciaron dos proyectos de gran envergadura. Una nueva refinería señalaba la ambición de Brasil de convertirse en un gran productor de petróleo. Los planes para un astillero, Estaleiro Atlântico Sul, presumían que sería el mayor y más moderno del hemisferio sur.“La industria naval brasileña ha llegado para quedarse”, proclamó Da Silva en 2005, esbozando planes para una red de astilleros. “Brasil se está preparando para los próximos diez años: crecimiento crecimiento crecimiento”.El frenesí de la construcción fue bien recibido por los residentes de la isla de Tatuoca, una pequeña comunidad de pescadores artesanales de la zona. Las obras, dijeron, les permitieron mejorar sus chozas con lujos que antes habían estado fuera de su alcance.José Rodrigo da Silva, un extrabajador del puerto, pesca cerca de su casa en Suape.Mauricio Lima para The New York Times“Era una buena vida, con buenos muebles, televisores y equipos de música”, recordó José Rodrigo da Silva, un pescador nacido en la isla.El gobierno de Lula Da Silva creó un popurrí de aranceles e incentivos financieros para que los astilleros consiguieran contratos por miles de millones de dólares, asegurando así trabajo durante al menos dos décadas.“El plan era usar la industria naval para generar empleos en el nordeste”, dijo Nicole Terpins, presidenta del astillero cerca de Recife.Pero había muchos motivos para el escepticismo, comentó Ecio Costa, economista en la Universidad Federal de Pernambuco.Un trabajador del puerto en el astillero Atlântico Sul.Mauricio Lima para The New York Times“No había mano de obra capacitada, no había suministros”, dijo. “Para construir barcos hace falta toda una cadena de suministro, un sector tecnológico, y nada de eso sucede de la noche a la mañana”.Las 75 familias que vivían en la isla de Tatuoca empezaron a cuestionar los beneficios de la ampliación del puerto en 2009, cuando una draga empezó a arrancar trozos del lecho marino para dar cabida a grandes barcos.“Comenzó la devastación”, comentó el pescador Da Silva. “Desaparecieron los cangrejos, los peces, todo empezó a morir, y ya no teníamos forma de llegar a fin de mes”.En 2010, a los residentes de la isla les dijeron que serían desalojados para dar paso a la expansión de las operaciones de construcción naval. Todos acabaron por abandonar sus hogares en la isla a cambio de modestas pagas y simples casas adosadas en el territorio continental.“Muchos de los que vivían allí no sabían qué era una calle”, afirmó el pescador de 37 años. “Nos prohibieron volver a Tatuoca”.Un camino en la isla Tatuoca, que fue abandonada para dejar el paso libre al proyecto de Puerto Suape y el astillero Atlântico Sul.Mauricio Lima para The New York Times‘Podemos ser un gran país’El desplazamiento forzoso fue visto por casi todos como parte del precio que hay que pagar por el crecimiento de una nación en ascenso.Los empleos en Pernambuco de pronto eran abundantes, y más brasileños podían acceder a ellos. Las inversiones en educación y los nuevos programas de discriminación positiva permitieron que un número sin precedentes de brasileños negros fueran a la universidad.En 2007, el descubrimiento de vastas reservas de petróleo en alta mar llevó a un extasiado Da Silva a proclamar, en un discurso: “Dios es brasileño”.Ese año, el Banco de Desarrollo Brasileño emitió una las mayores líneas de crédito de su historia: 1200 millones de dólares para construir diez buques petroleros. El banco también financió con 252 millones de dólares la construcción del astillero Atlântico Sul, que el banco proyectaba emplearía a alrededor de 5000 personas y crearía 20.000 empleos indirectos.En el escenario internacional Lula Da Silva hacía olas.Ayudó a lanzar una alianza diplomática de las principales economías emergentes que incluía a China, India, Rusia y Sudáfrica. Argumentó ante Naciones Unidas que Brasil merecía más voz y un asiento permanente en el Consejo de Seguridad.Quizá lo que mejor capturó la sensación de posibilidad y euforia del momento fue cuando miles de brasileños estallaron en celebraciones de júbilo en octubre de 2009, después de que Brasil diera la sorpresa en el concurso para organizar los Juegos Olímpicos de 2016. Fue un logro supremo para Da Silva.“Nunca me he sentido más orgulloso de Brasil”, exclamó Da Silva. “Ahora vamos a demostrar al mundo que podemos ser un gran país”.Un grupo de personas se fotografió junto a los aros olímpicos cerca de la Arena de Voleibol Playa en la playa Copacabana durante las Olimpiadas de 2016.Mauricio Lima para The New York Times‘La corrupción se convirtió en un medio para gobernar’Da Silva dejó el cargo a finales de 2010 con un índice de aprobación del 80 por ciento y con Rousseff en posición para continuar su legado.Sin embargo, la mandataria empezó a flaquear cuando los precios de las materias primas cayeron y las facciones del Congreso, conocidas por operar de forma muy transaccional, empezaron a romper filas con el partido gobernante.Rousseff fue reelegida por un estrecho margen en 2014, cuando la economía entró a un periodo de contracción que pronto se convertiría en una profunda recesión. Ese año, las fuerzas del orden federales llevaron a cabo las primeras detenciones del mayor escándalo de corrupción de la historia del país.La presidenta Dilma Rousseff en 2014. Dos años más tarde fue sometida a juicio político, luego de una caída económica y los brasileños se indignaron por las acusaciones de corrupción contra el gobierno de su predecesor.Mauricio Lima para The New York TimesLa investigación sacó a la luz esquemas de sobornos en los que estaban implicados algunos de los políticos más poderosos del país y grandes empresas a las que se les habían concedido miles de millones en contratos gubernamentales. Entre ellas, el gigante petrolero estatal Petrobras —el principal cliente del astillero de Pernambuco— y el coloso de la construcción Odebrecht.Varias personalidades implicadas, entre ellas estrechos colaboradores de Da Silva, llegaron a acuerdos de colaboración con los fiscales a cambio de clemencia. Su cooperación puso de manifiesto el impresionante alcance de los delitos cometidos durante la presidencia de Da Silva, lo que condujo a acuerdos históricos con los fiscales de Brasil y Estados Unidos. Odebrecht aceptó pagar 3500 millones de dólares, el mayor acuerdo en un caso de corrupción extranjero investigado por el Departamento de Justicia de Estados Unidos, y Petrobras aceptó pagar 853 millones de dólares.Deltan Dallagnol, uno de los fiscales brasileños que dirigió la investigación, dijo en un correo electrónico que los gobiernos de Da Silva y Rousseff permitieron “un patrón de corrupción estructural y sistémica”. Añadió que los miles de millones de dólares que las empresas aceptaron devolver a las arcas del gobierno, así como el testimonio de los acusados que se sinceraron, demostraron “que la corrupción se convirtió en un medio para gobernar el país”.Los investigadores no tardaron en centrarse en Da Silva, que finalmente fue acusado en once causas penales relacionadas con supuestos sobornos y lavado de dinero.Lula Da Silva durante un mitin de campaña en São Paulo en 2017, antes de que fuera a prisión acusado de corrupción.Mauricio Lima para The New York TimesLas crisis política y económica coincidentes allanaron el camino para la destitución de Rousseff y se extendieron por todo el país, destruyendo varios sectores, entre ellos la incipiente industria de construcción naval.El astillero Atlântico Sul se vino abajo. Petrobras canceló de manera abrupta los pedidos de barcos. Su línea de crédito fue suspendida. Y los principales ejecutivos de las dos empresas que lo construyeron se encuentran entre los acusados de corrupción. De la noche a la mañana, miles de constructores navales fueron despedidos.Y no fue un caso aislado para nada, dijo Samuel Pessôa, economista de la Fundación Getulio Vargas en São Paulo.“Todas las iniciativas fracasaron”, dijo de los proyectos emblemáticos de la era Da Silva. “La corrupción no fue el factor principal; eran proyectos mal planeados y la desconexión entre los emprendimientos lanzados y las condiciones de la economía y la sociedad de Brasil”.Jair Bolsonaro en su oficina cuando era legislador federal en 2017. Detrás de él se encuentran los retratos de los líderes de Brasil durante la dictadura militar.Lalo de Almeida para The New York Times‘Prenderle fuego’Cuando los brasileños acudieron a las urnas en 2018, Da Silva estaba en la cárcel, condenado por aceptar renovaciones a un departamento frente al mar como soborno de parte de una empresa constructora.Los proyectos emblemáticos que había emprendido, como el ferrocarril en el noreste y los astilleros, se habían vuelto insolventes y habían quedado paralizados.Un índice de desempleo de dos dígitos y un número récord de homicidios en 2017 hicieron que el electorado se enfadara… y aceptara a un contendiente presidencial disruptivo.Bolsonaro, que había sido un legislador marginal durante décadas, canalizó la rabia de los votantes, presentándose como un político incorruptible. Derrotó fácilmente al candidato del Partido de los Trabajadores, consiguiendo un apoyo impresionante en las regiones pobres, incluida la base de Lula Da Silva en el noreste.El alcalde de Recife, João Campos, que pertenece a un partido de centroizquierda, dijo que tres años después, millones de votantes se han arrepentido de ese voto.Los trabajadores separan materiales para el reciclaje en el barrio Brasília Teimosa, una comunidad de bajos ingresos en Recife.Mauricio Lima para The New York Times“Es como si tuvieras una casa llena de ratas y cucarachas, y la solución que encuentras es prenderle fuego”, explicó Campos. “Eso es lo que hizo Brasil”.Desde que asumió el cargo en enero de 2019, Bolsonaro ha mantenido a Brasil en crisis, buscando peleas con aliados políticos y discutiendo con los jueces del Supremo Tribunal que supervisan las investigaciones sobre su gobierno y miembros de su familia.Bajo su mandato, el desempleo aumentó, millones volvieron a caer en la pobreza, la inflación volvió a ser de dos dígitos y la pandemia mató a más de 600.000 personas.Sondeos de opinión pública muestran que si la elección se realizara ahora, Bolsonaro perdería frente a todos sus posibles rivales.Una pancarta muestra a Bolsonaro como un demonio durante una protesta en julio que pedía enjuiciarlo por su manejo de la pandemia.Mauricio Lima para The New York TimesUn enfrentamiento entre ambos líderes realizado por la encuestadora Datafolha mostró que Da Silva —quien rehusó varios pedidos de entrevista— ganaba por un enorme 56 por ciento frente al 31 por ciento de Bolsonaro.Algunos de los casos penales contra Da Silva se han desbaratado en tanto los protagonistas de la cruzada anticorrupción cayeron en desgracia. Uno de los principales fue Sergio Moro, el juez detrás de la condena que mandó al expresidente a prisión.La imparcialidad de Moro fue cuestionada cuando se unió al gabinete de Bolsonaro como ministro de Justicia y después de que se filtraron mensajes intercambiados con fiscales durante la investigación que mostraban que les había brindado asesoría estratégica de manera ilegal.Al mancharse la reputación otrora intachable del exmagistrado, varias cortes, entre ellas la Suprema Corte de Brasil, emitieron una gran cantidad de fallos a favor de Da Silva. Los fallos, en gran parte procedimentales, no lo exculparon. Pero en la práctica básicamente le otorgaron un expediente legal limpio.Da Silva, a la derecha, de visita en un asentamiento del Movimiento de los Trabajadores Rurales Sin Tierra en el estado de Pernambuco en agosto. Mauricio Lima para The New York Times‘Nos dio prioridad’Ante el torrente de escándalos de la era de Bolsonaro, un electorado que antes estaba ansioso por crucificar a Da Silva y a su partido ha adoptado un enfoque más optimista, dijo John French, un profesor de Historia de la Universidad de Duke que escribió una biografía de Da Silva.“Se les acusó de no haber sido capaces de eliminar el dinero y la corrupción de un sistema político en el que eso siempre ha sido la esencia de la política”, expresó, argumentando que los votantes brasileños, en general, se han resignado al chanchullo político. “Si asumes que todo el mundo es corrupto, la pregunta es: ¿quién se preocupa realmente por ti? ¿Quién siente por ti? ¿Quién es capaz de hacer algo por ti, algo concreto?”.Esas preguntas han hecho que personas como José Rodrigo da Silva, el pescador, se mantengan fieles a Da Silva.El astillero en el que el pescador alguna vez se puso un uniforme con orgullo ahora está invadido de maleza. La oficina de contratación está cerrada y al letrero exterior le faltan varias letras. La empresa ha empezado a reparar barcos para pagar a los acreedores, pero no tiene planes de construirlos.Lleva en el paro desde 2017. Su factura de la luz tiene pagos atrasados de meses. Las aguas residuales sin tratar burbujean a menudo fuera de su casa. Pero sus ojos se iluminaron cuando habló del regreso del expresidente que comparte su apellido.“El periodo en el que más trabajé fue cuando él era presidente”, aseguró. “Todo el mundo roba. Pero él nos dio prioridad”.Lis Moriconi More