Brazil is, at least on paper, one of the most gifted countries on earth. It holds the world's largest tropical rainforest, vast agricultural land, deep offshore oil reserves, a young and creative population, and a domestic market of over 200 million people. And yet, decade after decade, the country underperforms. Its currency is chronically weak, its interest rates are among the highest in the world, and its middle class fights a constant battle against inflation. The problem, however, is not a lack of resources, rather where those resources go.

The cost of the political elite

Brazil's Congress is composed of 513 federal deputies and 81 senators — 594 politicians whose combined cost to the public purse is staggering. Each lawmaker currently earns R$ 46,366 per month in base salary, but that figure tells only part of the story. Deputies are entitled to up to R$ 165,806 monthly to hire as many as 25 personal staffers, plus a parliamentary quota covering flights, phone bills, and office expenses. Senators receive a housing allowance of R$ 5,500 per month if they choose not to use one of the 72 government-owned apartments available to them. A 2021 study by researchers from the University of Brasília, the University of Southern California, and IMPA found that Brazil spends the equivalent of 528 times its average citizen's income per legislator per year, amounting to over R$ 24.7 million each — by far the highest ratio among the 33 democracies studied. In most comparable countries, that multiple is around 40.

Then there is the electoral fund — the Fundão Eleitoral. Created in 2017 to replace corporate campaign donations after the Supreme Court banned them, it has grown into one of the most controversial line items in the federal budget. In 2018, it stood at R$ 1.7 billion. By 2022 and again in 2024, Congress approved R$ 4.96 billion — nearly tripling the amount in six years. For 2026, lawmakers expanded it again to R$ 4.9 billion, quintupling the government's original proposal of just R$ 1 billion, with the difference covered by cuts to state investment grants. In other words, money that could have gone to infrastructure, health, and education was redirected to finance political campaigns.