Catalina Pérez and controversy over “donations from the DR”: “I will not accept being put on the bench of the accused”

A complicated morning had the president of Democratic Revolution, Catalina Pérez. At 7:30 in the morning, together with the rest of the board of directors, they held an “emergency” meeting to evaluate how to act in the face of the controversy regarding donations to the party made by the RD parliamentarians, a situation that occurred after the accusation launched by the deputy and former member of the store, Renato Garín.

Through his Twitter account, the parliamentarian maintained that his former peers in the bench have “a bank savings that already amounts to hundreds of millions”, with which they would finance their future electoral campaigns. “They repeat that they” donate half “of their salary. This is NOT true, ”he wrote.

Thus, in this interview, the helmsman of the community addresses the controversy and ensures that they have always acted with transparency. In addition, it explains how the contribution mechanism of each of the parliamentarians works.

Deputy, how does the mechanism of contributions to the party of each parliamentarian work?

First, to say that it seems inexplicable and laughable that we are talking about this and not about the real needs that people live, such as the concern that hospitals do not collapse, that they have a basic income and that we are talking about a fictitious controversy of something that we have always transparent. When we take office, we transparently decide to give up our salaries and contribute to our project to guarantee, firstly, the independence of business interests, strengthen our work on the ground, and thirdly, allow other people without millionaire resources to apply for representation and For this reason, we hand it in and hand it over to one of our deputations, the other part is received by the party and the other part is saved to make it available for future campaigns by other leaders.

In terms of amounts, how much is it? You said that 50% of the salary is contributed.

Of the 9 million pesos (gross), about 2.5 go to taxes, contributions, AFP, Fonasa, etc. We put 1.7 million into parliamentary work so they are directly surrendered in the accounts of our deputations. Another 1.2 million pesos is deposited directly into the party’s account and is paid to Servel and nearly 500 thousand pesos are deposited in a savings account. Those are the approximate amounts.

Do you have a term deposit in that savings account?

It depends on each parliamentarian because they are individual savings. One part is a shared savings, another part is an individual savings and it is collected like any other savings, there it depends on each parliamentarian and in due time the contribution will be made in the manner established by law.

Something that was questioned is that you always used the word “donation” when talking about the amounts contributed by the party. Is it legitimate to use that word when the money goes to the party and not to some institution?

I want to be super clear. Donating is transferring something for free and irrevocable. PYou can call this a donation, contribution, contribution, as we have done, but what they cannot say is that here there is a lack of transparency., because we have said this from the beginning. It has always been on the institutional pages of our party representatives and it has also been on the information we have provided to Servel.

But don’t you think that could be misinterpreted in some way?

In other words, you can question the term that is used. As I said, donating is transferring something for free and irrovocable. In some cases we have used the term donation, in others contribution, in another contribution, but I insist, what cannot be said here is that there is a lack of transparency because we have said that from the beginning and even when only Giorgio was the only deputy from the DR .

Deputy, this differential amount that goes to a personal savings account. Can that savings be considered a “donation” if it’s something that isn’t going to the party right now?

This saving is intended to serve so that other people can finance their campaigns in the future without depending on the economic interests of third parties, as has happened for years in the illegal financing of politics. For example, Giorgio, who will not go for re-election, effectively saves so that someone can have those resources in the future. Those funds, in due course, are contributed in the manner established by law.

And will it not be problematic to propose it as a donation when there is a percentage, of which they always said that they donated 50% of the salary, which is not being contributed now to the party?

We have always explained, with all the transparency, you can find it on our pages, the pages of the party and in various interviews and statements by Giorgio, how this amount is distributed. We have been super clear, we believe that parliamentarians can carry out their work receiving half of their diet and that is what we have done so far. We could spend all of our salaries and contribute it to the rodeo tomorrow, we prefer not to do that and make a distribution that really contributes to the party not being hijacked by business interests in a transparent way and with the respective surrender and we effectively save so that other people can later be leaders.

That if this percentage that goes to the savings account, is not something that was explained by you. What they reported was a 50% donation overall. That’s why the question. Is that percentage an effective donation to the party?

I repeat that part of the savings is shared, part is individual and is put together like any other savings. In due course, the contribution will be made in the manner established by law, such as contribution, donation, contribution, but we have always been clear that all DR parliamentarians do the same thing as any other parliamentarian but receive half of their diet.

Deputy Garín pointed out that this endowment would be a shared account. Is there such a thing or is it all in personal accounts?

No, as I just said, part of the savings is shared and part is individual. The part of savings shared is part of the private contributions account that must be paid every quarter to Servel.

What has been used the money that the parliamentarians have contributed?

An important part is saved for the future of our political project, to be able to deliver an alternative that allows us to build a fairer country where being in politics is not synonymous with wealth and hopefully in politics we will talk more about the needs of the people who are fictional controversies. It is part of our conviction to democratize spaces of power and that money contributed also serves to strengthen parliamentary work in the territories, with actions that go to the direct benefit of our representatives and representatives, or to generate political work where we have social leaders who do not receive no financing.

From sectors of the opposition, a certain “moral superiority” on the part of the DR has been criticized, which reappeared today and was already taking place during the processing of the diet reduction project. They were wrong in the tone they used during the processing of that project?

It is not about moral superiority, it is about an ethical minimum, even more in the context of health and economic crisis that affects the country. People do not know if they will be able to make ends meet and for many in Congress who prefer not to lose their privileges they prefer to attack us. This is not a topic. Parliamentary diets in Chile are excessively high and political work cannot be a way to get rich. I hope that the reduction that is defined in 30 more days is substantial and that it does not come with fine print as it always happens.

And don’t you think it’s populism, as some parliamentarians have said, to talk about donations when resources go to the party itself?

The parties that have not wanted to reduce their own salaries, try to muddy the work of those who do not depend on business groups and who, in addition, have pushed for more than six years that the diets of parliamentarians have ethical limits that adjust to reality From Chile. It seems to me a tremendous impudence that those who have received financing from Penta, SQM and Corpesca and have been convicted of correction cases come to give us lessons on what we do or don’t do with our salaries. I will not accept being put on the bench for the accused when we have done absolutely nothing wrong. And what I do think is populist is to create an artificial controversy about something we have been saying for four years, when they continue to fill their pockets and go up and up in cases of corruption. I find that enough is enough.

What do you see behind Garín’s move?

The truth is I do not know what their intentions will be and they do not interest me. What I am interested in is that it be clear, as we have always sought to leave it, the way of financing that the DR has and that allows us to maintain the interest placed in the representation of the great majority of our country and not according to the business powers. The political operations of the right, the right will have to explain them.

But this is something that comes from the same path of you …

Those who worked for the right continue to work for the right no more.

Why do you think that there is finally a situation of doubt about the RD funds? Was it necessary to be more explicit in matters of transparency?

Right here there is an attempt to divert public opinion in a very delicate moment in the country, what strikes me is that the concern is not that hospitals do not collapse, that people have basic emergency income, that social isolation measures are increased, which is what we have been working on. And just at that moment this political operation is articulated the day they refuse to lower the parliamentary diet. And also this pushed by the same sectors that urged us to be in politics and seek that democracy is at the service of the people and not financed by Corpesca, which sends its instructions to the president of a party and today dares of putting us in the dock.

About account 2. What was the logic of defining that amount to reach account 2?

The fulfillment of the donation commitment of 50%, the delta of account two represents the remainder between what we can contribute to the party and what remains to complete that percentage that we do not perceive in our individual pockets but rather we contribute to the collective work of the match.

The doubt remains, because there is a percentage that is not an effective donation at this time, if it can be called a donation or contribution to the party. There are approximately 500,000 pesos that are not entering the party now. Regarding what is communicated, is it an effective donation or not?

I think I already answered this question saying that part of this savings is shared, part of the savings is individual and is put together like any other savings and at the time the contribution will be made in the manner established by law, we have always stated very clearly that 50% of our diet we decide not to perceive it and rather contribute it to the collective work and that has different modalities. One modality in fact is to contribute to our councils and transfer it directly to the account of our councils to be territorial work, another part goes directly to the party and a third modality is the creation of savings that is also part of a collective definition. that we take as a party and that we all sign and assume, when assuming as deputies of the Democratic Revolution. That is also a party agreement and changes the modalities because what we are really looking for is to meet various objectives and make them available to the project in different ways.

Finally, month by month they are not making a contribution of 50% …

It is that in that case, for example, the contribution we make to the councils, in the logic of their position, we would also have to subtract it because it is not 50% either. There are three different ways of making a contribution to your collective project, one is savings, the other is the transfer to territorial work, and another is the transfer to the party. In fact, part of what is transferred to the party is part of this collective savings account, so it is also savings, nor is it something that is spent immediately.

Don’t you think maybe that’s something that was miscommunicated?

I think that we have always been super transparent with pointing out that half of our salary goes to work and to the contribution of the collective work that we carry out within our organization so that we can effectively guarantee that our organization has independence from economic interests and thus has also been rendered both on the Servel pages and on our individual pages, as well as on the party pages, all that information exists, now if you ask me, obviously you can always bet on generating better mechanisms for the circulation of information, but I believe that the standards that the DR has in terms of use of public and private resources, in terms of transparency they are extremely high and go beyond what the law itself requires.