Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Ron DeSantis Finds a New Set of Laws to Ignore

      by

      There once was a Florida fund-raising committee called Friends of Ron DeSantis, which was overflowing with the $142 million it had raised. Mr. DeSantis used it personally for his campaign to be re-elected governor of Florida in 2022, but that was far more than he needed for that race, and when he was done he still had $86 million left over.But one day that committee disappeared. In fact, it was on May 15, just nine days before Mr. DeSantis announced that he was running for president. In paperwork filed that day, the committee changed its name to Empower Parents PAC and the governor’s name appears nowhere on the website’s home page. And just as that filing was made, the super PAC that is supporting Mr. DeSantis’s presidential ambitions said that it would be getting more than $80 million in leftover money transferred from Empower Parents.That transfer represents a new frontier in the long-running battle to undermine presidential campaign finance laws. And it is only one example of the many ways in which Mr. DeSantis, in particular, has tried make a mockery of those laws. If you want a preview of how Mr. DeSantis views the government’s limits on power and plutocracy — as feeble as they are already — there’s no better place to look than his campaign.There’s a reason that state political committees can’t just transfer their money into presidential super PACs. The Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which led to the creation of super PACs, said plainly that those committees had to be independent of a candidate’s campaign in order to receive unlimited contributions.But Friends of Ron DeSantis, as a state committee, was never independent of its namesake. He signed the paperwork to set it up in 2018, and listed himself as the person to solicit and accept all of its contributions. That was true until May 5 of this year, when he filed another official letter with the state saying that he was no longer soliciting or accepting contributions.The state committee had already become something of a slush fund for donors who wanted to help Mr. DeSantis’s long-term ambitions, which were never well disguised. Consider this: Mr. DeSantis was re-elected on Nov. 8, and is prevented by law from running for a third consecutive term. But the committee took in more than $15 million after the election. Why, for example, would Gregory P. Cook, whose essential-oils company, doTERRA, received a warning letter in 2020 and a lawsuit from the Federal Trade Commission for making false claims about preventing Covid, donate $1.3 million to Friends of Ron DeSantis on Feb. 22 of this year? Is it possible that he might want better treatment from a DeSantis presidency?The State of Florida certainly knew it was wrong to transfer money from a state campaign fund to a federal one. Since at least 2016, the biennial handbook issued by the Florida Division of Elections had expressly prohibited that move. “A Florida political committee must use its funds solely for Florida political activities,” the handbook said. But as NBC News reported, the DeSantis administration quietly deleted that wording, and this year’s version of the handbook conveniently says for the first time that such transfers are allowed. The new handbook bases its reasoning on the Citizens United decision — which of course had been in effect for 13 years, including when the handbook prohibited the move.The Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit group that closely monitors these kinds of transactions, has filed a complaint against the DeSantis campaign with the Federal Election Commission, saying the transfer is illegal. But as Team DeSantis knows, the commission has deadlocked so often — with three Republicans countering three Democrats — that it has become toothless. In a similar but smaller case last year when a Republican member of the House tried to transfer state campaign funds, the commission refused to take action after the usual 3-to-3 vote.The transfer is only one of the ways Mr. DeSantis is pushing the limits of the campaign finance system. The super PAC supporting his presidential run, bearing the schoolboy name of “Never Back Down,” has made it clear that it has a dangerously broad view of what its role should be.Up to now, the main role of super PACs in elections has been to run TV ads in favor of a candidate or against an opponent, with an unconvincing disclaimer in small print at the end that the ad sponsor is not associated with any campaign or candidate. Super PACs can take in contributions of unlimited size, so they’ve been a great vehicle for wealthy donors, unions and corporations to demonstrate loyalty to a candidate without bumping up against the $3,300 individual donation limit per election for giving directly to a campaign.Those ads are bad enough, but Never Back Down is going much further by essentially taking over many of the main functions of the DeSantis campaign itself. As The Washington Post recently reported, the super PAC is opening office space in each of the early primary states, organizing a corps of door-knockers and volunteers, and launching a “Students for DeSantis” effort on university campuses, among other grass-roots organizing work. “This is going to be expansive and a completely different kind of super PAC,” Kristin Davison, the chief operating officer of Never Back Down, told The Post.The Times reported that Never Back Down is preparing to spend more than $100 million on the DeSantis field operation, hiring 2,600 workers by Labor Day to “knock on the door of every possible DeSantis voter at least four times in New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina — and five times in the kickoff Iowa caucuses.” The report quoted another leader of the super PAC as saying that no one had ever tried an effort like this before.One reason for that may be its dubious legality. No definition of a super PAC — technically defined as an “independent expenditure committee” (emphasis added) — can conceivably include that much detailed organizing work on behalf of a candidate, and it is impossible to imagine it can be done without silently coordinating with the “real” DeSantis campaign. By having wealthy donors, some of whom make multimillion-dollar contributions, pay for such fieldwork, the campaign can spend more money on things that only it can do, such as transporting the candidate and getting on 50 state ballots. That’s why donations given directly to a campaign, known as “hard money,” are much more valuable to a candidate, as well as being harder to raise because of the contribution limits.But as Mr. DeSantis has demonstrated repeatedly in Florida, he’ll just blow past the guardrails of the law if it suits his purposes. In his latest attempt to shatter the concept of independence, his super PAC has been put to work raising money directly for Mr. DeSantis’s campaign.Before the governor’s official announcement last month, Never Back Down raised $500,000 in hard money for a “draft committee,” all of which was to be transferred directly to the campaign once it became official, CBS News reported. For the draft committee, the super PAC limited contributions to the $3,300 limit, but by doing the work of fund-raising, and using its list of donors, the super PAC was in essence making a huge but unreported contribution to the campaign. One campaign finance expert described this effort by the super PAC as “unprecedented.”And the closeness between Never Back Down and the campaign continues to this moment. If you go to Never Back Down’s website, and click on the big red “donate” button at the top, it takes you to a page that collects donations for the campaign, not the super PAC.“This is effectively a huge in-kind gift to DeSantis’s campaign and will subsidize his fund-raising costs considerably, which is exactly the sort of role a super PAC should not be allowed to play,” said Saurav Ghosh, director of federal campaign finance reform at the Campaign Legal Center.On top of all that, the governor’s chief of staff, James Uthmeier, was used as one of the presidential campaign’s biggest fund-raisers, as NBC News reported Thursday. Breaching any ethical barrier between public service and politics, Mr. Uthmeier had administration officials around Florida pressure lobbyists to contribute to Mr. DeSantis’s campaign.Mr. DeSantis is hardly the only politician in the race who has demonstrated contempt for basic ethics and campaign finance laws. Donald Trump has funneled money from his leadership PAC to his super PAC, a different kind of abuse that has also drawn a complaint before the F.E.C. But Mr. DeSantis’s actions are pathbreaking in an unusually wanton and disdainful way. If that path should lead to the White House, it’s clear that big money will have a welcome place in American politics under his administration.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

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s Former Leader, Is Arrested in Financial Inquiry

      by

      The arrest of Ms. Sturgeon, who resigned as leader of the Scottish National Party in February, follows that of her husband, previously the party’s chief executive, and of its former treasurer.Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s former first minister, was arrested on Sunday by police officers investigating the finances of the Scottish National Party, which dominates the country’s politics and which she led until her unexpected resignation in February.The news deepens the crisis engulfing the S.N.P., which campaigns for Scottish independence, following the earlier arrests of Ms. Sturgeon’s husband, Peter Murrell, the party’s former chief executive, and then of Colin Beattie, its former treasurer.Both men were released without being charged after questioning, but the latest development is a dramatic fall from grace for Ms. Sturgeon, a popular politician who served as Scotland’s first minister for more than eight years until she announced her resignation.That decision took the political world by surprise and prompted a divisive race to succeed her that was ultimately won by Humza Yousaf, previously Scotland’s health secretary.However, Mr. Yousaf’s efforts to establish himself as Scotland’s new first minister have been overshadowed by the extraordinary drama after the recent escalation of the police investigation into the S.N.P.’s finances.In line with normal British protocol, Ms. Sturgeon was not named in a statement from Police Scotland, which said that “a 52-year-old woman” had on Sunday “been arrested as a suspect in connection with the continuing investigation into the funding and finances of the Scottish National Party,” adding that she was “in custody and is being questioned” by detectives. The BBC and other British news outlets identified the arrested woman as Ms. Sturgeon.Police Scotland’s inquiry, code-named Operation Branchform, began in 2021 and was reported to have followed complaints about the handling of around 600,000 pounds, or nearly $750,000, in donations raised to campaign for a second vote on Scottish independence. (A first referendum on the question was held in 2014, with Scots voting by 55 percent to 45 percent against independence.)The authorities are thought to be looking into whether money intended to fight for another vote on independence was diverted for a different purpose, and to be investigating why Mr. Murrell made a loan to the party.Mr. Murrell, who has been married to Ms. Sturgeon since 2010, held the post of chief executive from 1999 until March, when he resigned after accepting blame for misleading statements from the party about the size of its dues-paying membership. Mr. Beattie resigned after his arrest.After Mr. Murrell’s arrest, the British media reported that the police had seized a luxury motor home parked outside his mother’s house. Mr. Yousaf confirmed to reporters that the party had bought the vehicle — to use as a mobile office for campaigns, officials told local news outlets — but said that he only learned about the purchase after he became leader.At the time of her resignation, Ms. Sturgeon explained her decision by saying she was exhausted and had become too polarizing a figure in Scottish politics to persuade wavering voters to support independence.Some critics have since come to doubt that explanation but, when asked by the BBC in April if the police investigation of Mr. Murrell had prompted Ms. Sturgeon’s resignation, Mr. Yousaf replied: “No, I believe Nicola Sturgeon absolutely that she had taken the party as further forward as she possibly could.” More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      DeSantis Campaign Uses ‘Deepfake’ Images to Attack Trump, Experts Suggest

      by

      The images, which at first glance appear genuine and are interspersed with real photographs in a campaign video, purport to show Donald Trump hugging and kissing Dr. Anthony Fauci.As Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida begins to aggressively attack former President Donald J. Trump, his campaign has spread three images of the former president embracing Dr. Anthony S. Fauci that forensic experts say are almost certainly realistic-looking “deepfakes” generated by artificial intelligence.The images — which at first glance appear genuine and are interspersed with real photographs in a campaign video — show Mr. Trump hugging and kissing Dr. Fauci, who led the nation’s pandemic response and has been a target of harsh criticism from Mr. DeSantis. The governor has used the pandemic to contrast himself with his main rival for the Republican presidential nomination.A Twitter account run by Mr. DeSantis’s campaign posted the images, part of a video attacking Mr. Trump, on Monday. The news agency Agence France-Presse first reported that they appeared fake on Wednesday.The governor’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.Mr. Trump’s Republican allies criticized the DeSantis campaign on Thursday. Senator J.D. Vance of Ohio wrote on Twitter: “Smearing Donald Trump with fake AI images is completely unacceptable.” Representative Marjorie Taylor Green of Georgia agreed, saying: “Those fake AI campaign ads need to be taken down immediately.”In turn, Mr. DeSantis’s camp suggested the images were obviously fake, comparing them to memes circulated by Mr. Trump and his allies. But those images — which included a video of Mr. DeSantis in a woman’s suit adapted from “The Office” and a “recording” of a conversation between Mr. DeSantis, Adolf Hitler and the Devil — were clearly intended to be humorous and easy to discern as doctored.On Twitter, Christina Pushaw, the DeSantis campaign’s rapid response director, shared a fake photograph of Mr. DeSantis riding a rhinoceros (a reference to accusations that he is a “Republican in Name Only,” or RINO), writing: “I think this might be an AI-generated image. Who knows?” The image, which appeared to be photoshopped, had earlier been posted by Mr. Trump on his Truth Social website.As the 2024 campaign heats up, the use of such deepfakes has been of urgent concern to those who study manipulated images, which thanks to new technology are easier to generate than ever before. While Americans have grown far more skeptical of reports in the print, digital and broadcast news media, experts said, they have been more likely to trust videos and images that they could examine with their own eyes. The advent of deepfakes could change that.“This is the big information security problem of the 21st century,” said Matthew Stamm, an associate professor of electrical and computer engineering at Drexel University who reviewed the images of Mr. Trump and Dr. Fauci and strongly doubted their authenticity.After President Biden announced he would seek re-election, the Republican National Committee released a video with A.I.-generated images, including of China invading Taiwan, claiming to depict a potential future if he were to win again in 2024. Unlike Mr. DeSantis’s video, the R.N.C. ad acknowledged, in small white characters at the top left of the screen, that it had been “built entirely with A.I. imagery.”Hany Farid, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said the use of such tactics would only increase.“We will continue to see campaigns, state-sponsored actors, trolls and people who want to sow chaos use these fake images to drive their own agendas,” said Mr. Farid, who also concluded that the images posted by the DeSantis campaign were most likely fake.While he described the three images as “pretty clumsily done” — pointing to flaws in Mr. Trump’s hair and ear, as well as nonsensical lettering in what appeared to be a White House seal and an American flag with a bizarre pattern of stars — he said generative artificial intelligence was quickly growing more sophisticated. For instance, he said, the technology had already adapted to produce more authentic-looking hands, an early flaw in its realism.“These are well-known signs that an A.I.-based synthetic image generator was likely used to create these images,” said Mr. Farid, who added that some experts were beginning to systemically review campaign materials for signs they contain deepfakes.He said politicians would now have a ready-made excuse when genuine representations of their actions — such as Mr. Trump’s infamous “Access Hollywood” tape — appear in public.“They have plausible deniability,” Mr. Farid said. “They can say it’s fake.”Jonathan Swan More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Could Democrats Get Another Shot at Redistricting in New York?

      by

      State courts that struck down Democrats’ gerrymandered maps a year ago are poised to decide a renewed legal contest over whether to grant them another chance.A year ago, Democrats were taken to task by New York’s highest court for attempting to gerrymander the state’s congressional districts, and saw their tilted map replaced by more neutral lines that helped Republicans flip four House seats.Now, with a 2024 rematch approaching, Democratic leaders in Washington and Albany are reviving a legal battle to reopen the mapmaking process and potentially pull the lines back in their direction.Lawyers paid by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee are expected to argue before appellate judges in Albany on Thursday in favor of scrapping the court-drawn districts, and returning the mapmaking powers to New York’s beleaguered redistricting commission — and ultimately the State Legislature that gerrymandered the lines in the first place.The case will almost certainly rise to the Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, in the coming months. And while a ruling may turn on competing readings of the State Constitution, its significance is unmistakably political, with far-reaching implications for the balance of power in Washington.Under the current maps drawn by a court-appointed expert, New York is one of the nation’s most competitive House battlegrounds. But if the Legislature is once again given a say, Democratic lawmakers could conceivably flip as many as six of the 11 seats now held by Republicans, offsetting potential Republican gains from a similar case playing out in the Southeast.“With the likelihood Republicans will re-gerrymander the lines in North Carolina, the legal fight over New York’s lines could determine whether Democrats stay in contention for House control in 2024,” said Dave Wasserman, an elections analyst with the Cook Political Report.The redistricting battle in New York last year wound its way to the office of Jonathan Cervas at Carnegie Mellon University. Mr. Cervas drew the new district maps for the state.Ross Mantle for The New York TimesHe called the suit “pretty close to must-win for Hakeem Jeffries to have a shot at becoming speaker.”Legal experts are uncertain about the Democrats’ chances of success. Republicans already convinced a lower court judge to dismiss the case. But Democrats are newly optimistic that the lawsuit will ultimately be upheld, given the shifting composition of the state’s top court, where a new chief and associate judge have pushed the bench leftward this spring.Whatever happens, New York promises to be perhaps the most contested state in the nation for House races next year. Republicans outperformed expectations in New York during the 2022 midterm elections, leaving their candidates positioned to defend six districts President Biden won in 2020, two by double digits.“We think our chances are good, but it’s not something we are relying on,” said Jay Jacobs, the Democrats’ state party chairman. “If it happens, it’s a bonus.”But as an analysis by Mr. Wasserman has shown, rearranging those six districts even slightly could make the task nearly prohibitive for Republicans to win in some places. Both parties have begun taking that possibility more seriously.The court case was proceeding this week as Democrats in Albany used the final days of this year’s legislative session to try to shore up their electoral prospects in other ways. Democratic supermajorities in both legislative chambers appeared poised to adopt changes weakening New York’s new publicly financed donor-matching program in ways that would benefit incumbents.Fair Elections for New York, a coalition of government watchdog groups that had hailed the new system for trying to diminish the influence of big-money donors in politics, warned that the tweaks could “severely roll back the progress” just as the public financing system takes effect.Republicans, who have aggressively pursued their own gerrymanders in other states, leveled similar criticisms at New York Democrats about the attempt at a redistricting do- over. Savannah Viar, a spokeswoman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said the Democrats were “weaponizing the courts to rig the game.”“The Democrats, despite all of their rhetoric about fair elections and protecting democracy, are trying to subvert democracy in New York State,” said John Faso, a former congressman who helped orchestrate the successful Republican lawsuit last year that undid the Democrats’ preferred district lines. Like last year’s legal fight, the new case, Hoffmann vs. Independent Redistricting Commission, revolves around a set of 2014 constitutional amendments intended to remove partisanship from redistricting. They outlaw gerrymandering and create a new, bipartisan commission to draw legislative lines.That commission failed to reach consensus in 2022. After its members could not even agree to meet to complete their work, the Legislature commandeered the process and passed maps that heavily favored Democrats.The Republicans sued, and the Court of Appeals ruled that the Legislature had gerrymandered the lines, and violated the constitution by simply going ahead when the commission stopped working. With time running short, the high court told a trial court judge to appoint a neutral expert from out of state to draft replacement districts.In the new lawsuit, which counts several New York voters as plaintiffs, Democrats are not defending the initial maps. Instead, they argue that the court-approved mapmaking process also ran afoul of the State Constitution.“The people of New York are presently governed by congressional maps that were drawn by an unelected, out-of-town special master and rubber-stamped by a partisan, right-wing judge,” said Christie Stephenson, a spokeswoman for Mr. Jeffries, the House Democratic leader from New York. She added that letting the maps stand would be “undemocratic, unacceptable and unconscionable.”The Democrats’ lawyers have asked for the judges to step in to order the redistricting commission to reconvene, more than 12 months after it deadlocked. Doing so could prompt the commission to find new agreement. If it does not, however, the Legislature could step in and draw new lines, this time on surer legal footing.Republican members of the commission and their allies disagree, and are prepared to argue that the court-drawn maps put in place last year must stand for the remainder of the decade.A lower court judge, Peter A. Lynch, agreed with that position last September, when he dismissed the suit, ruling that there were no constitutional grounds to reopen the mapmaking process. Democrats’ appealed.A panel of judges who will hear the case on Thursday are expected to issue a ruling in the coming weeks, after which it will likely be pushed to the Court of Appeals.The composition of the court has been the subject of a tense, intraparty tussle since the retirement of the former chief judge, Janet DiFiore, last summer, not long after she wrote the majority decision striking down Democrats’ redistricting plan.The state’s new chief judge, Rowan Wilson, is expected to be more receptive to Democrats’ arguments than his predecessor.Cindy Schultz for The New York TimesProgressives who run the State Senate rejected Hector LaSalle, the first chief judge nominee put forward by Gov. Kathy Hochul, before ultimately accepting the elevation of a more liberal alternative in Judge Rowan D. Wilson.The Senate objected to Judge LaSalle’s previous rulings related to abortion rights and unions. But Republicans and some neutral observers argued that liberal lawmakers were also shopping for a judge who would be more likely to take their view on redistricting matters.Democrats denied that, but may indeed have a more receptive audience in Judge Wilson, who as an associate judge, dissented from the majority opinion in the 2022 redistricting case. At the time, Judge Wilson wrote that the Republicans had failed to prove the congressional map was impermissibly gerrymandered, and concluded that the state constitution gave the Legislature final authority in redistricting.Two other members of the seven-person court shared that view in whole or in part. If they maintain those positions, that could leave the case in the hands of the court’s other new member, Caitlin Halligan, whose position is not clear to court watchers.Grace Ashford More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Ron DeSantis Defends Migrant Flights While Taking Shot at Gavin Newsom

      by

      Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida criticized immigration policies in his first visit to the border since beginning his presidential bid.Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida on Wednesday defended his state’s sending three dozen Latin American migrants to Sacramento on recent charter flights from the border, saying California had “incentivized” illegal immigration and ought to pay the costs.“These sanctuary jurisdictions are part of the reason we have this problem, because they have endorsed and agitated for these types of open-border policies,” Mr. DeSantis said during his first visit to the southern border since starting his presidential campaign. “They have bragged that they are sanctuary jurisdictions. They attacked the previous administration’s efforts to try to have border security.”Democratic officials in California, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, have said Florida’s taxpayer-funded operation to move migrants to Sacramento could merit criminal or civil charges. They said the migrants, who arrived on Monday and last Friday, were misled into boarding the planes with false promises of jobs before being left outside a church building. In criticizing the flights, Mr. Newsom resorted to unusually personal terms, calling Mr. DeSantis a “small, pathetic man.”On Wednesday, Mr. DeSantis took a shot back at Mr. Newsom, comparing California’s budget deficit to his own state’s fiscal surplus. “We have a good managed state,” he said at a round-table discussion in Sierra Vista, Ariz., that included law enforcement officials from Florida, Arizona and Texas. Mr. DeSantis was appearing in his official capacity as governor.Mr. DeSantis has staked out a hard-line position on immigration in the Republican primary, criticizing the policies of both President Biden and, to a lesser extent, former president Donald J. Trump, his main rival for the nomination.“The border just needs to be shut down,” said Mr. DeSantis, who is making a fund-raising trip to Texas this week. He also reiterated his support for a border wall, adding: “Mass migration just doesn’t work.”Last month, Mr. DeSantis authorized sending more than 1,100 Florida National Guard members and law enforcement personnel to Texas to serve at the southern border. Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, a Republican, had requested the assistance. Mr. DeSantis led a similar effort in 2021, when he also made a public appearance at the border.While border apprehensions have hit record highs in recent years, illegal crossings between ports of entry along the southern border have decreased more than 70 percent since May 11, when Title 42, the pandemic-era health measure, was lifted, according to statistics from Customs and Border Protection.After Mr. DeSantis’s comments in Arizona, sheriffs took turns describing crimes that they said had been committed by undocumented immigrants.At times, the conversation felt like a campaign event, as the assembled officials, mainly Republicans, praised Mr. DeSantis.“I’ve worked for a lot of governors,” said Grady Judd, sheriff of Polk County in Central Florida. “Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake about it: This is simply the best governor that the state of Florida has had in the last 50 years.”Miriam Jordan More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Bolsonaro to Face Trial Over Electoral Fraud Claims

      by

      Brazil’s former president is accused of spreading false information about the nation’s election systems. A conviction would block him from office for eight years.The NewsBrazil’s former president, Jair Bolsonaro, is scheduled to go on trial this month on charges that he abused his power as president to make baseless attacks against Brazil’s election systems. If convicted, he would be ineligible to run for office for eight years.A panel of seven judges in Brazil’s electoral court will decide the case, which is scheduled to start on June 22. The court aims to reach a decision this month, though the case could be delayed if any judge requests more time.A rival political party has accused Mr. Bolsonaro of abusing the office of the presidency when, less than three months ahead of Brazil’s elections last year, he summoned foreign diplomats to a meeting, made false claims about the country’s voting systems and broadcast the remarks on state television.Brazil’s top prosecutor for electoral cases recommended that Mr. Bolsonaro be blocked from running for office because his speech to diplomats was intended to undermine the public’s confidence in Brazil’s elections. The sole punishment prosecutors are seeking is making Mr. Bolsonaro ineligible to run for office, which is the typical punishment for abuse of power in such cases.“As the head of state making public critiques, it could only be understood as a warning to Brazilians and the world that the election results could not be seen as reliable and legitimate,” said the prosecutor, Paulo Gonet Branco, in a legal filing that is sealed but was viewed by The New York Times.Former President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil speaking in March, after his loss, at the Conservative Political Action Conference in March in National Harbor, Md.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesWhy it Matters: A conviction could end Bolsonaro’s political career.The trial could upend Brazilian politics by removing Mr. Bolsonaro, the standard-bearer of Brazil’s conservative movement, from contention for the next two presidential elections.Mr. Bolsonaro, 68, remains a highly popular and influential figure among conservatives in Brazil and is seen as a likely challenger to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a leftist, in 2026. Mr. Bolsonaro received 49.1 percent of the vote in the 2022 election, just 2.1 million votes behind Mr. Lula, in the nation’s closest presidential contest since Brazil’s democracy was restored in 1985 following a military dictatorship.A conviction would also be a clear and strong repudiation of Mr. Bolsonaro’s tactics to undermine the vote, and a warning to any political allies who might be considering a similar strategy.Mr. Bolsonaro’s rhetoric resembled that of former President Donald J. Trump, a political ally. But the results for the two men could prove very different. Just six months after leaving office, Mr. Bolsonaro is facing charges that could end his political career. At the same time, while Mr. Trump faces investigations into his efforts to question the 2020 U.S. election, he is still the leading contender to become the Republican Party’s nominee in next year’s presidential vote.The Background: Bolsonaro has long attacked Brazil’s elections.Mr. Bolsonaro spent years criticizing Brazil’s voting systems, claiming that they were vulnerable to fraud and that his rivals were bent on rigging them, despite a lack of evidence. His commentary led millions of his followers to lose faith in the election systems and believe that Mr. Lula stole the 2022 election.Despite Mr. Bolsonaro’s assertions, numerous reviews of the election results found no credible evidence of fraud.One week after Mr. Lula was inaugurated in January, many of Mr. Bolsonaro’s followers invaded and ransacked Brazil’s halls of power in a bid to get the military to take control of the government.Still, Mr. Bolsonaro did authorize the transition of power and, for the first several months of Mr. Lula’s presidency, receded into the background of Brazilian politics by temporarily moving to Florida. Mr. Bolsonaro is now back in Brazil and has been making more public appearances.His lawyers have argued that his speech to diplomats, which is at the center of this case, was an “act of government” aimed at raising legitimate concerns about the election’s security. They have noted that the diplomats cannot vote and argued that the speech didn’t interfere with the electoral process.Neither Mr. Bolsonaro’s lawyer nor his spokesman responded to requests for comment.What’s Next: Bolsonaro faces a trial — and many other investigationsAfter starting on June 22, Mr. Bolsonaro’s trial will likely continue in other court sessions scheduled for June 27 and June 29. The seven judges on the electoral-court panel — made up of Supreme Court justices, federal judges and lawyers — could decide the case quickly, with a simple majority needed to convict. The electoral court is scheduled to break for a monthlong recess in July.Regardless of the trial’s outcome, Mr. Bolsonaro faces 15 other cases in the electoral court, including those involving accusations that he improperly used public funds to influence the vote and that his campaign ran a coordinated misinformation campaign against Mr. Lula. A conviction in any case could also deem him ineligible for office for eight years.Mr. Bolsonaro is also a subject of a federal criminal investigation into the Jan. 8 invasion of Brazil’s government buildings. A top Brazilian prosecutor has accused him of encouraging the mob. A conviction in the case could lead to prison time. As part of the case, Mr. Bolsonaro testified in April before federal police.Letícia Casado More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Bolsonaro enfrentará juicio por denuncias de fraude electoral

      by

      El expresidente de Brasil está acusado de difundir información falsa sobre los sistemas electorales del país. Si lo condenan estaría inhabilitado para postular al cargo durante ocho años.La noticiaEstá previsto que el expresidente de Brasil, Jair Bolsonaro, vaya a juicio este mes por cargos de abuso de poder como presidente para realizar ataques infundados contra los sistemas electorales de Brasil. Si es declarado culpable, no sería elegible para postularse para el cargo durante ocho años.Un panel de siete jueces del Tribunal Electoral de Brasil decidirá el caso, que está programado para comenzar el 22 de junio. El tribunal pretende llegar a una decisión este mes, aunque el caso podría retrasarse si algún juez solicita más tiempo.Un partido político rival acusó a Bolsonaro de abusar del cargo de presidente cuando, menos de tres meses antes de las elecciones de Brasil el año pasado, convocó a diplomáticos extranjeros a una reunión, hizo afirmaciones falsas sobre los sistemas de votación del país y transmitió los comentarios en televisión estatal.El principal fiscal de casos electorales de Brasil recomendó que se impidiera a Bolsonaro presentarse a elecciones porque su discurso a los diplomáticos tenía la intención de socavar la confianza del público en las elecciones de Brasil.“Como el jefe de Estado hace críticas públicas, solo puede entenderse como una advertencia a los brasileños y al mundo de que los resultados de las elecciones no pueden ser vistos como confiables y legítimos”, dijo el fiscal, Paulo Gonet Branco, en un expediente legal que está sellado pero fue visto por The New York Times.El expresidente Jair Bolsonaro de Brasil habló en marzo, después de su derrota, en la Conferencia Política de Acción Conservadora en marzo en National Harbor, Maryland.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesPor qué es importante: una condena podría acabar con la carrera política de BolsonaroEl juicio podría trastornar la política brasileña al sacar a Bolsonaro, el abanderado del movimiento conservador de Brasil, de la contienda por las próximas dos elecciones presidenciales.Bolsonaro, de 68 años, sigue siendo una figura muy popular e influyente entre los conservadores de Brasil y es visto como un probable retador del presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, de izquierda, en 2026. Bolsonaro recibió el 49,1 por ciento de los votos en las elecciones de 2022, solo 2,1 millones de votos detrás de Lula, en la contienda presidencial más reñida del país desde que se restauró la democracia en Brasil en 1985 tras una dictadura militar.Una condena también sería un repudio claro y fuerte a las tácticas de Bolsonaro para socavar la votación y una advertencia a cualquier aliado político que pudiera estar considerando una estrategia similar.La retórica de Bolsonaro se parecía a la del expresidente Donald Trump, un aliado político. Pero los resultados para los dos hombres podrían ser muy diferentes. Solo seis meses después de dejar el cargo, Bolsonaro enfrenta cargos que podrían poner fin a su carrera política. Al mismo tiempo, mientras Trump enfrenta investigaciones sobre sus intentos de cuestionar las elecciones estadounidenses de 2020, sigue siendo el principal candidato para convertirse en el candidato del Partido Republicano en las elecciones presidenciales del próximo año.El trasfondo: Bolsonaro ha atacado durante mucho tiempo las elecciones de BrasilBolsonaro pasó años criticando los sistemas de votación de Brasil, alegando que eran vulnerables al fraude y que sus rivales estaban empeñados en manipularlos, a pesar de la falta de pruebas. Su comentario hizo que millones de sus seguidores perdieran la fe en los sistemas electorales y creyeran que Lula se robó las elecciones de 2022.A pesar de las afirmaciones de Bolsonaro, numerosas revisiones de los resultados electorales no encontraron pruebas creíbles de fraude.Una semana después de la toma de posesión de Lula en enero, muchos de los seguidores de Bolsonaro invadieron y saquearon las sedes del poder en Brasil en un intento de que los militares tomaran el control del gobierno.Aún así, Bolsonaro había autorizado la transición y, durante los primeros meses de la presidencia de Lula, pasó a un segundo plano en la política brasileña al mudarse temporalmente a Florida. Bolsonaro ahora está de regreso en Brasil y ha estado haciendo más apariciones públicas.Sus abogados han argumentado que su discurso ante los diplomáticos, que está en el centro de este caso, fue un “acto de gobierno” destinado a plantear preocupaciones legítimas sobre la seguridad de las elecciones. Señalaron que los diplomáticos no pueden votar y argumentaron que el discurso no interfirió con el proceso electoral.Ni el abogado de Bolsonaro ni su vocero respondieron a las solicitudes de comentarios.Qué sigue: Bolsonaro enfrenta un juicio y muchas otras investigacionesDespués de comenzar el 22 de junio, el juicio de Bolsonaro probablemente continuará en otras sesiones judiciales programadas para el 27 y el 29 de junio. Los siete jueces del panel del tribunal electoral —compuesto por jueces del Supremo Tribunal Federal, jueces federales y abogados— podrían decidir el caso rápidamente, con una mayoría simple necesaria para condenar. El tribunal electoral está programado para entrar en un receso de un mes en julio.Independientemente del resultado del juicio, Bolsonaro enfrenta otros 15 casos en el tribunal electoral, incluidos los que involucran acusaciones de que usó fondos públicos de manera indebida para influir en la votación y que su campaña realizó una campaña de desinformación coordinada contra Lula. Una condena en cualquier caso también podría considerarlo inelegible para el cargo durante ocho años.Bolsonaro también es objeto de una investigación penal federal sobre la invasión de edificios gubernamentales de Brasil el 8 de enero. Un importante fiscal brasileño lo acusó de alentar a la turba. Una condena en el caso podría conducir a tiempo en prisión. Como parte del caso, Bolsonaro testificó en abril ante la policía federal.Letícia Casado More