{"id":5910,"date":"2025-08-28T12:58:37","date_gmt":"2025-08-28T15:58:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/renovabr.org\/?p=5910"},"modified":"2025-11-17T10:27:10","modified_gmt":"2025-11-17T13:27:10","slug":"mulheres-na-politica-candidatas-competitivas-ou-pecas-estrategicas","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.renovabr.org\/en\/mulheres-na-politica-candidatas-competitivas-ou-pecas-estrategicas\/","title":{"rendered":"Women in Politics: Competitive Candidates or \u201cStrategic\u201d Players?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Joyce Luz<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Humberto Dantas<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2014, we experienced the epicenter of questions about campaign financing in Brazil, amid an avalanche of corruption scandals stemming from Operation Car Wash. Due to a unilateral decision by a Supreme Court justice, the ban on corporate donations was only lifted in 2015. The 2016 election was held virtually in secret, critics say, due to the lack of funds. From that moment on, the electoral fund was created, which has been in effect since the 2018 election in Brazil.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Several analyses and studies have been conducted to gauge the impact of this public financing measure on the reality of elections. But the debate over campaign funding is more extensive and complex. One of them is associated with the distribution of public resources allocated to parties and campaigns by gender. Since 2018, when the Electoral Fund came into effect, the Supreme Federal Court (STF) determined that 30% of its total, per party, would need to fund women's campaigns. The measure involved other definitions in terms of proportionality, but in short: portions of the Party Fund used in campaigns and the Electoral Fund must include women. In 2022, the National Congress enacted constitutional amendment 117, guaranteeing at least 30% of these resources to women, also deciding on an amnesty compared to previous years, which recognizes the difficulties for political parties in complying with the ruling while it originated in the Judiciary. Attempts to grant amnesty to parties' inability to comply with such determinations remain on the agenda, demonstrating the complexity of the issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In light of the debate on gender equality in politics, the introduction of public campaign financing and the mandatory allocation of 30% of resources to women was accompanied by the expectation that such a mechanism could mitigate historical asymmetries in access to electoral resources, given that studies show that the variable of money is the most closely associated with electoral success. It was assumed that the allocation of public funds, subject to normative criteria and institutional oversight, would help reduce the gap between male and female candidates in the volume of resources raised, thus mitigating one of the structural factors of female underrepresentation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Using the Municipal Electoral Inequality Map developed by RenovaBR, our aim here is to understand, on the one hand, to what extent these resources actually reach women and, on the other, to what extent they become mere intermediaries for these donations. Here, the argument goes as follows: the party provides the resources to women, but they appear as donors to male campaigns, since the law allows female candidates to donate to male candidates. By isolating donations received from other candidates, excluding estimated amounts, which do not consider direct transfers of money through bank transfers, to what extent do women stand out compared to men as intermediaries, indicating a weakening of the legal framework in the reality of campaigns?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The initial, more general data points to a scenario that contradicts expectations of equal access to resources. Accounting information from the Superior Electoral Court (TSE) reveals that, in 2018, female candidates raised, on average, R$$ 83,000, while male candidates received around R$$ 142,000\u2014a difference of R$411,000 in favor of the latter. In 2020, this gap narrowed to R$121,000, but grew again in 2022, reaching almost R$301,000, and in 2024, it reached around R$351,000.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An analysis of the funding allocated by female candidates reveals a persistent pattern of mostly allocating resources to male campaigns\u2014with the exception of the most recent election. In 2018, female candidates allocated, on average, R$$ 26,000 from their campaigns to fund male candidates, while the amount allocated to other women was approximately R$$ 13,000. Proportionally, this means that of the total funds allocated by female candidates to third parties, R$67% went to men and only R$33% to women.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the 2020 municipal elections, the scenario repeated itself: female candidates donated, on average, R$12,000 to male campaigns and approximately R$1,000 to female campaigns, maintaining a ratio of R$641,000 to men and R$361,000 to women. In 2022, this inequality worsened significantly. Although women donated, on average, R$127,000 to other women's campaigns, the average amount allocated to male candidates reached R$127,000\u2014almost six times more. In this election, only R$141,000 of the resources mobilized to support other campaigns were allocated to women, compared to R$861,000 allocated to men.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 2024 election marks a turning point in this pattern. For the first time in three consecutive elections, female candidates allocated more resources to other women than to men: on average, R$3,000 went to women's campaigns and R$2,000 to men's. Proportionally, R$581,000 of the resources donated went to women and R$421,000 to men. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Although the reason for this reversal requires further investigation, apparently linked to the constitutional amendment and its institutionalization, the data suggests a possible realignment in the support strategy among female candidates. In 2026, the issue will certainly remain in vogue, with significant potential for legal action regarding questionable actions by some parties in certain states. What we can hope for is that RenovaBR remains committed to bringing to public debate an issue essential to democracy: respect for diversity and the opportunities for candidates to compete for votes on a more balanced basis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Joyce Luz,<\/strong> PhD from USP. She is currently a postdoctoral fellow at FGV-SP, affiliated with CEPESP, a professor at FESP-SP, a political consultant for RenovaBr, and Director of the Conscious Vote Movement of S\u00e3o Paulo.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Humberto Dantas<\/strong>, PhD in political science from USP, university professor and education consultant at RenovaBR, where he has worked since 2017.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Joyce Luz Humberto Dantas In 2014, we experienced the epicenter of questioning regarding campaign financing in Brazil, in the face of an avalanche of corruption scandals stemming from Operation Lava Jato. Due to a unilateral decision by a Supreme Court Justice, the ban on corporate donations was only finalized in 2015. The 2016 election took place [\u2026]<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5925,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_eb_attr":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[6,1955],"tags":[1897],"class_list":["post-5910","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-destaques","category-conscientizacao","tag-renovabr"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.renovabr.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5910","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.renovabr.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.renovabr.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.renovabr.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.renovabr.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5910"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.renovabr.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5910\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.renovabr.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5925"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.renovabr.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5910"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.renovabr.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5910"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.renovabr.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5910"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}