Talk:Mensalão scandal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Mensalão scandal is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Brazil and Brazil-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
To-do list for Brazil: This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	This article has been cited as a source or otherwise recommended by the mainstream press. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source for details.
This template is considered deprecated: please replace it with Template:Onlinesource and provide details of the citation.

Cited in:

• "Contra corrupção, a internet", Marcelo Tas, O Estado de S. Paulo - copy

}}

Contents 1 POV dispute: Vote-for-cash X Off-book accounting 2 Sanmartin 3 Back to work 4 Sugestion 5 My opnion 6 Enough of the POV fights 7 Collazzo deleted 8 Cleanup needed 9 Who is citing who? 10 Dollars in the pants! 11 Attorney-General's Decision to Indict Suspects 12 Title 13 Peacock

[edit] POV dispute: Vote-for-cash X Off-book accounting

I've put a POV add in this article.

Most of the investigations and most of the proofs leads to irreguarities in off-book accounting in the electoral expenses (caixa dois de campanha), commited by PT, but also by other parties, like PTB, PSDB, PFL.

One: Few proofs on vote-for-cash were discovered and this article's description of the scheme is based almost on Jefferson's accusations. Most of the proofs presented in Brazilian press as mensalão-related can be interpreted as off-book-related. (PT donating money to PT to PT vote with PT. It's strange!) Until now, no deputy has gone to the press to testify the existence of it. Perhaps, the cash-for-vote existed, but it is not proved. At the same time, this article shows the existence of the scheme as clear and sure. Should we?

Few proofs on vote-for-cash were discovered - It is false. The Parlamentary Comissitions of Investigation collect a great ammount of material supporting Jefferson's claims. Besides Jefferson there are several other witnesses: the secretary, two deputies, a minister, a governor, etc. [Carlosar]

Yes, a very great ammount of material was collected by the C.I. and all of it leads to the existence of a complex off-book accounting, in which PT is involved. I repeat what I said above. Lots of these proofs indicates money recieved by pt-ists. PT donating money to PT to PT vote with PT. Don't you think it is strange? And more: what about the recievement of Valério's money by PSDB candidates in Minas Gerais? PSDB didn't recieved cash-for-vote, I think. It actually indicates Marcos Valério created a scheme to repass money from timids donators to the parties' off-book accounting. Furthermore, the proofs presented in this article - the coincidence in time of withdrawal and votes - is not conclusive. How many deputies can you buy with R$ 500,000? Just fifteen in more than five hundreds members of the Chamber. Think about it. José San Martin 19:10, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Two: There's no mention on the off-book accounting scheme, which Marcos Valério was surely related to. There are lots of documents showing that MV donated/repassed off-book money for politicians. This is the main cause of the crisis.

False. This is not the main cause of the crisis. The main cause of the crisis is the suspicion of payment to deputies by Executive. [Carlosar]

Well, the crisis actually began when Jefferson's accusations on cash-for-vote. However, the main focus of the investigations led to the off-book accountings. José San Martin 19:10, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Three: This article leads the reader to think PT was the only envolved in the scandal. Please, PT haven't invented corruption in Brazil. MV donations involved PT's electoral expenses, but also PSDB's (see Azeredo in Minas Gerais) and PTB's. There are more figures (and more PTists, too) that should be listed in involved in the scandal, starting by Marcos Valério.

No, PT haven't invented corruption in Brazil, it is true. However it is the first time that a political party wants to buy the Legislative so the Executive can create Laws favouring it. This is new in Brazil! --Carlosar 03:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

New? No, it older even than us. A less recent scandal. In 1997 Fernando Henrique Cardoso wanted to reelect himself. Passing an ammendment to permit reelection would be just immoral, if a scheme of vote-for-cash haven't be discovered. This scheme is being investigated by the current "Mensalão" Investigation Comission. José San Martin 19:10, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Four: threatens to bring down of the government is a slightly dangerous statment that must be discussed in a separated topic. There some rumours on Impeatchment, but even his reelection is a possibility.

It is not rumours. It is a real possibility!!! Read the newspapers. --Carlosar 03:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree! I agree! But I'm just saying this single and alone phrase can be misinterpreted. It must be covered in a exclusive topic. The sufficient to say that there are people that believe that the process of impeachment will have effect and people that think reelection is still a strong possibility. José San Martin 19:10, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Five: that list of business involved should be better explained.

Here you are right and I agree 100% with you. --Carlosar 03:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow, good. José San Martin 19:10, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

My personal comments: Unfortunately this case is not very well covered in English media, although it is a important matter. There are a lot of information, but in Portuguese. I suggest you do a research and find some good articles in English. --Carlosar 03:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I recommend to read [1] Carta Capital, edited by the famous Mino Carta. Here you can find (portuguese, only) another point of view of the crisis and much information that Veja don't publish. I don't think we can find some good material in English, unfortunately. Futhermore, Carta doesn't 19:10, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Carta Capital is a publication from Workers Party sympatizers, like you. I am not so fool.

And please! Remove the POV tag. The article is not pov.--Carlosar 03:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Since it's POV is in discussion, this article is POV. I'm sorry :) José San Martin 19:10, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

The article has been written in Portuguese, French, Esperanto, Italian and Spanish. And there is not a single pov mark in any one of these versions. Besides, the article is not been written by Brazilians only. Since the scandal has reach Portugal, the Portuguese people are contributing to the article and reading it. Thanks! --Carlosar 11:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks,

José San Martin 23:44, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with much of this... The sections about the members of other parties still need be translated and/or researched. And perhaps we should have a separate section about similar activities that may have been occuring long before. What exactly do you mean by the off-book accounting scheme? How does this make the article POV or not?

Threatens to bring down the government... Well, "threatens" only implies a possibility and conveys the magnitude of the scandal to non-Brazilians. Many of the key government figures have already resigned and this possibility is certainly discussed in publications in Brazil and abroad. It may not be a pleasant recognition, but I think it is universally acknowledged as at least a possibility. We could soften the language however. Tfine80 23:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, in these terms, I agree that it shall be keeped in the first paragraph, with these word, perhaps. But I keep thinking a topic relating ALL the possible Consequences is needed. José San Martin 19:10, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

You are wasting your time. This guy is a Workers Party fanatic. He will no accept anything even if you show a truck full of evidences. [IP: 200.178.227.135]

Don't be offensive, sire. I've got no more pacience for coup-lovers like you. You have just to present a single proof that can prove something. I've already said that the only proof is too weak to prove cash-for-vote. José San Martin 19:45, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

If you were not a Brazilian I would give reason for you. But since you are a Brazilian and you have access to every news and article abou the crisis, I am very surprised with your claims and your argument that there are not proofs!

The Attorney-General of Brazil disagrees that there is no evidence of a "cash-for-votes" scheme. In fact, the Attorney-General last week formally indicted 40 people (including former ministers Dirceu and Gushiken, former Speaker of the House Cunha, and former PL/PTB party leaders Costa Neto and Jefferson) for embezzlement and misappropriation of public funds with the intent to influence key votes in Congress. Incidentally, I believe that information should be added to the Wikipedia article: we are no longer talking about partisan hearings in Congress, but rather actual criminal charges laid down against the suspected operators of the "mensalão" network. 17:10, April 13, 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Sanmartin

I am afraid that the User:Sanmartin is "working" for the Workers Party... What you American and European think about it? [brazilian ip]

Can't you shut up?! Who are YOU working for, then?! I'm a brazilian, from Campinas, São Paulo. I've no relationship with Worker's Party and I do not admit personal attacks! I'm just one of the Brazilians who does NOT support this white coup d'état that is being made by Brazilian Media: Veja, Folha de São Paulo, Globo, O Estado de São Paulo, Época, Istoé, which prefer histerical attacks than offer a clear sequence of the facts. See what happened in Venezuela, two years ago? Can you - in this talk page - present a single proof on Cash-for-Vote, instead of attacking me, please?! 15:49, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I live in Campinas too. And I repeat what this other guy said. You are "working" for the Workers Party. Probably you are from Unicamp. You are living in another reality talking nonsense like coup d'état and a Brazilian media conspiration. International media is part of this "consipiration" too? Am I part of this conspiration? Is Wikimedia part of this conspiration? Socialist parties like P-SOL are part of this "conspiration"? There is a clear sequence of facts. You are the only one who is refusing to see.

Hey! What the other guys from Wikipedia say about this guy?

Ad hominem is forbidden on Wikipedia. You are free to disagree with Sanmartin's edits, but please keep the discussion based on the article. Starghost 18:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Back to work

Ironically, the POV question is whether there is or not a POV question in this article. Let's back to work and remove it. And please, let us be more professional and avoid personal atacks.

Since it is a current event and it touches strongly what we thought about not only PT, but also about the government and - why not? - the future of this country.

First, I must say, what do I think about it. Obviously you realised that I am a PT supportes. Yet, I've got no 'official' relationship with it. I say that PT's scandal involves mainly off-book accounting, a common practice among our politicians. Personally I don't believe that cash-for-vote scheme existed, since the investigations have been searching all, except mensalão. Few proofs specifically on it were discovered (at the other hand, proofs on off-book accounting are abudant). Although the CPIs have not final conclusions yet, Comission of Ethics of Chamber concluded that mensalão has never existed. Well, I would ask you to post here everything that can be a proof. Don't think it as a personal challange, please.

And what am I proposing? Just include in this article the other point of view. Other accusations against other people, the off-book hipotesis, other proofs and a constest of the proof that it has. Also, the steet protests pro- and anti- Lula must be mentioned.

Hey, what do you think on it?

Thanks, José San Martin 20:59, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I think that you a fanatic and that this article should be revised by other people besides you, a Workers Party fanatic. Look, you are claims are nonsense since people from left and even some Workers Party members already have admitted the payments for deputies, among other worst things. You are the only person that doesnt want to see.

• Stop offending me and make me see what you want me to see! Please, I want to know your point of view. How can you proof cash-for-vote? José San Martin 14:19, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sugestion

Maybe a mediator out of Brazil (who is not a Brazilian, and who is not for and against the Wokers Party) could resolve the disputes here. --Carlosar 12:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I will try to put something following some suggestions of Sanmartim, if I get free time. --Carlosar 21:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My opnion

I'm from Brazil, watching TV and reading newspaper everyday, and the article it's OK. Maybe because envolvement of Worker's Party the things are strong for us, Brazilians accustomed see PT talk about socialism/revolutionism, loving Cuba/Guevara and act without the minimum of responsibility (also the President) now with the subject is corruption. --Mateusc 20:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Enough of the POV fights

I am NOT Brazilian and still don't know as many of the details as I should... I have worked a fair amount on this article and the articles of the associated figures involved, and I am tired of this fight over the POV tag. I think it is very important that this article is good and fair and we should not underestimate its importance and urgency. It has a very high Google rank for searches like "mensalão" and I would imagine many people around the world are reading these pages to understand what is happening in Brazil. San Martin, Carlos, Mateusc, let's all make a list of what needs to be done to the article to make it fair and complete. Please add to the list maybe in order of priority and sign your name.

1. Clear language that everything is an allegation; in cases where there are disputes Tfine80 21:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
   1. I agree. José San Martin 22:01, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

1. New section on "Evidence surrounding vote-for-cash allegation"... connected to timing section (does this need to expanded with new information?) Tfine80 21:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
   1. I agree José San Martin 22:01, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

1. A section on the history of political corruption in brazil; maybe we need a separate article... i don't know. Tfine80 21:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

1. A section on the issue of Lula's knowledge Tfine80 21:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
   1. Personally, I don't like this point. Vote-for-cash is still a supposition. Talking about Lula's knowledge we'll be doing nothing but supposing on suppositions. Not very encyclopedic, you know. It can be this article, however, we need not repeat "he is corrupt or he is a idiot". José San Martin 22:01, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should wait until this get investigated more in Congress... Is this an issue? Tfine80 23:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

1. Finish the section on the figures involved in the other parties Tfine80 21:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
   1. Envolved strictly on the vote-for-cash or also other accusations, like PT's off-book accouting, Azeredo's accounting, Severino's i-don't-know-what-on-earth, Universal's money and all these etc.? José San Martin 22:01, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

1. Translation of the information on the various businesses involved from the pt wiki Tfine80 21:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

1. The topic "the scandal's explosion" could be split in two topics, one just about the story and other, more objective, listing the accusations that had been made. Right? José San Martin 22:01, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

The irony, San Martin, is that now it mostly describes the history of the event. If we do it like this (which I am not opposed to) the POV battles may only get more intense. It will need to be constructed carefully. Tfine80 23:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

1. I don't like the topic Principal business, since it is unclear and can be easly substituted by a list of the accusations. E.g., is Previ involved? Why? And Brasil Telecom, why is it not here? Daniel Dantas, the former president of BrT, is the main Valerio's source of money. I. e., can this list be comprehensive and clear? Couldn't some vitims be confused with the responsibles? José San Martin 22:01, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I also think that it currently sort of slanders these businesses by insinuation. I don't think it is a problem as long as every business involved is listed and the allegations are explained. Tfine80 23:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

1. Don't let us forget to put the results and parcial results of the investigations. José San Martin 22:01, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a list of the members of CPI and information about the reports and links to them. Tfine80 23:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

1. And also I must say: why don't we rename of the article to 2005 Brazilian Political Crisis. Perhaps it can be more comprehensive, since there are more accusations in this crisis. José San Martin 22:01, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

This is a good idea, and I would support it if others agree. Vote-for-cash does imply certain things and the scandal is much more complicated. From bingo to the post office to now this restaurant thing. Tfine80 23:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I desagree. The main focus of this article is the Vote-for-cash scandal, and everybody says Vote-for-cash scandal, and the suject is better known as the Vote for cash scandal. --Carlosar 13:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

1. Finally, there must be here the contests on these accusations. The defense must be here. José San Martin 22:01, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Also, if anyone wants to add something to the article, but would prefer to write it in portuguese, make a subsection on your talk page, and I will help translate it with you. Tfine80 21:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Collazzo deleted

Here I'm back again. I've deleted the following text:

Francisco Collazzos - Agent of international public relations for FARC. Arrested by Federal Police in August 24, 2005, accused of being in the country illegally. Documents in the archives of the Agência Brasileira de Inteligência (Abin) that Collazzos announced on Abril 13, 2002, during a party with key members of leftist parties at a house in Brasília, that FARC would give a five million dollar donation to Lula's Presidential campaign in 2002. The Agency claims that these documents are forgeries. A Commission of Investigation presided by the Workers' Party concluded on March 17, 2005 that the charge was empty. Colombia asked for the extradiction of Collazzos, but members of the PT, PSOL, PCdoB, and the PCB have opposed this.

There are few hits for Francisco Collazzos. However, Veja published this accusation, indeed. But it is excessive unrealiable, since it has not been proved and the proofs Veja claimed to have were qualified as "forgeries" by ABIN, that supposedly created the documents.

This paragraph can be kept, however. Just revert me, I don't mind. But I think it is just bad to Veja's and this article's reliability. José San Martin 18:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I second the deletion. This specific accusation has died down, in addition to the Cuba one, it is in the category of "maybe once proven". --Dali-Llama 00:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup needed

This page is 74 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size.

There is an exaustive cronology and several exaustive lists of people involved that are duplicated in their own entries. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so, please, some cleanup is in order. I'll be adding some tags as a suggestion within the next hours. ≈ Ekevu ^talk _contrib 17:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who is citing who?

• I just returned from a couple of months in Brazil, where I read quite a bit of mensalão coverage. Indeed, the timeline presented here, it seems to me, closely follows the exhaustive timeline assembled by Veja -- whose Marcelo Tas then turns around and cites it as an instance of Internet irregulars telling the truth to power. I can't say that definitively, but I distinctly hear an echo chamber. I have not laid the two side by side, but I do thing it might a useful exercise.

The timeline presented here of what has appeared in the Brazilian press is impressively extensive, but its selection of sources is highly selective, first of all, and secondly it makes no attempt to independently assess the crediblity of any of it from original sources, such as publicly available documents from the legislature, the CPIs, federal police, fazenda, etc. It's a timeline of all the wild speculation, partisan ranting, fist-pumping sound-bites and political opera bufa that's been put out, leavened with leaks, incomplete official findings, and all sorts of other maracutaias. Item: The document rooms of the CPIs are not secured, for example, aside from a "members only" sign on the door, I recently read.

• In general, a key component missing from this article is the role of partisan media coverage, both pro and contra the PT government, and the influence of live television on the course of the CPIs. The preliminary report on the mensalão, for example, confined itself to the period 2002-2004, as mentioned, and did not conclude that the mensalão existed. It is not expected to reconvene. Part of the articles of impeachment against Roberto Jefferson was that none of his accusations had been verified, in fact. I read the document, will see if I can provide it.

• There is, as this article notes in passing, copious evidence that Marco Valério first mounted the scheme to launder caixa dois funds for the previous government. The former governor of Minas Gerais has been shown to have laundered copious funds for the PSDB's caixa dois through funding for sporting and cultural events provided by state and private enterpries. Lula once famously said that if campaign laws were enforced as written, the Chamber of Deputies would be emptied.That's true of the pizza issue now.

• Currrently, the PT is maneuvering to have a separate CPI mounted to look into the 1998-2002 chapter of the "Valerioduto", but parliamentary rules only allow for 5 CPIs at a time (or is it 7), and the agenda is crowded with inquiries into Bingos, Caixa Dois, the supposed "mensalão,^ the Post Office (CPI dos Correios), which have basically merged into a single inquiry into campaign finance irregularities.

• Any student of history knows that the Brazilian media is not and has never been a pristine and unblinking lens on the passing scene. For example, when we recently went to enter the password in our newsstand copy of Veja in order to enter the paid content section of the site, the password provided was NOVO LACERDA -- a reference to Carlos Lacerda, the media mogul and governor of Guanabara State who was an enthusiastic spokesman and propagandist for the anti-Jango movement that led to the "Revolution of 1964"--until the generals removed him from office. (The official entry on Lacerda cites a work by a certain Prof. Dulles that lionizes him as a "crusader," but that is not a universally held view.)

• That's a very in-your-face little in-joke about what the Editora Abril is up to. They, and Editora Tres, and Globo, and all the other closely-held media companies, are very much part of the cast of characters of this story--as are the caixa dois contributors, who have yet to be outed.

--Colin Brayton

[edit] Dollars in the pants!

Someone here, as Brazilian, complain that José Adalberto Vieira da Silva dollars founded in their pants are the most symbolic Mensalão event being very explored by brazilian media and need a special section

That's hardly encyclopedic, and not really emphasized since it happened. That is not the most symbolic Mensalão event--not yet anyways. If you feel otherwise, try to find references in the media recently to support a section about it.--Dali-Llama 20:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

José Simão referred to it this week. He said the episode was the "star of the mensalão." A.Z. 03:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attorney-General's Decision to Indict Suspects

Last week, the Attorney-General of Brazil (Procurador-Geral) formally indicted 40 people (including former state ministers José Dirceu and Luiz Gushiken, former Speaker of the House João Paulo Cunha, and former PL/PTB party leaders Valdemar Costa Neto and Roberto Jefferson) for embezzlement and misappropriation of public funds with the intent to influence key votes in Congress and obtain and unfair advantage in electoral campaigns. That is an extremely relevant piece of information that should be added to the Wikipedia article. Note that we are no longer talking about allegedly partisan hearings in Congress, but rather actual criminal charges laid down against the suspected operators of the "mensalão" network (it's now up to the courts to decide whether they are guilty or not). 17:19, April 13, 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Title

[edit] Peacock

The quality of this article or section may be compromised by wording which promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. You can help Wikipedia by removing peacock terms or finding content which backs the claims.

The first line says the subject "dominated" politics. A.Z. 18:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

AZ, honestly I appreciate the effort, but you have to stop tagging things and start fixing them. If you tag an article about one instance, the same amount of edits it would take for you to tag it, would be equal to removing the peacock term. If it's pervasive and requires a lot of effort, then I agree, use the tag. But one instance of the word you could've fixed it yourself.--Dali-Llama 19:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you appreciate my effort, but I would need various referenced verifiable facts to appropriately substitute the sentence "The Mensalão scandal (...) dominated the politics of Brazil in 2005." I see that you simply removed the phrase "dominated the politics of Brazil in 2005", without making the effort to show that it dominated the politics of Brazil in 2005. Perhaps this was an improvement, perhaps someone else could have found a better way to solve the problem. A.Z. 19:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The current sentence, "The Mensalão scandal (...) threatened to bring down the government of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva," is vague; weasely; peacocky; telling, not showing; unencyclopedic; unverifiable in general; synthesis; and original research. A.Z. 19:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this article outright sucks and needs a re-write.--Dali-Llama 21:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

As do most articles. Eventually someone will re-write them. A.Z. 22:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)