Great controversy has arisen in the country on behalf of 500 million pesos from the Colombian Federation of Educators that ended in Petrism. The issue, on the one hand, is to investigate whether the money entered the campaign, whether it was reported or not and whether or not doing so violated the electoral limits on expenses that can legally be incurred within the framework of a campaign. politic campaign.
On the other hand, it is investigated, in the event that the money entered Human Colombia, why Fecode made such consignment and whether or not there were irregularities in this regard. In ‘Vicky en SEMANA’, Christian Garcés, representative to the Chamber for the Democratic Center, debated with Gabriel Becerra, representative to the Chamber for the Historical Pact.
Their debate also occurs after the statements made by Omar Arango Jiménez, former Fecode executive, who said that the money did enter and went to the current president’s campaign, even if President Gustavo Petro denies it. “I want to clarify that the approval of that money (of the 500 million pesos for Petro’s campaign) was not unanimous. That was done in a meeting where I was not present, they did not count on me, being a member of the Fecode Executive Committee. There were 15 of us, and 14 were in the first round with Gustavo Petro and 1 with Jorge Enrique Robledo, which was me,” said the teacher.
“I found out from people outside the executive that They asked me if it was true that they had approved 500 million pesos for Petro’s campaign and I responded that no, that I did not know because it had not been approved in any meeting of the Executive Committee. I clarify that it does not bother me and I am not opposed to the fact that Petro’s presidential campaign has been supported, because later I had to see how Fecode’s resources were invested in campaign caps, t-shirts, and pens. Union members, I believe, can accompany democratic campaigns as long as they are carried out in the corresponding instances. I did not know about those 500 million, I believe that the Executive Committee is not empowered to approve a sum of that level.”
Watch the debate between the congressmen:
In this context, the Uribista congressman wondered about Fecode’s powers to make a donation, either to a political party or a political campaign. In addition, he wondered if the teachers knew that their income was used for this purpose and questioned the “indoctrination” that teachers incur with students due to their political affiliation. “This has to be a political trial now in the House of Representatives,” he stressed.
The Petrista congressman, in contrast, asserted that it is a smear campaign against a government that makes people uncomfortable. Likewise, he pointed out that “they want to do this to discredit the teachers and end the teachers’ right to strike, the right to protest. “That the teachers supported a candidacy is as legitimate as that the ranchers have supported a right-wing candidate.”
The representatives to the Chamber held an agitated debate around the powers of teachers to take political sides. In Petrismo’s opinion it is legal and that is why he urged the National Electoral Council to clarify the issue. In contrast, the Uribista representative questioned the electoral limits and the legality of said donation. The debate is still open.
