Story
Sep 24, 2026
Court says Michelle Bolsonaro ad does not amount to Jair Bolsonaro endorsement
The ruling draws a line between a candidate referring to her spouse and using him as an electoral surrogate: Michelle Bolsonaro’s side says the ad is personal and lawful, while Erika Kokay’s side says the limits on Jair Bolsonaro’s political participation remain intact.
The Regional Electoral Court of the Federal District (TRE-DF) has allowed Senate candidate Michelle Bolsonaro to air campaign material containing images and a quotation from former president Jair Bolsonaro, overturning an earlier order that had required its removal.
Judge Rafael Moreira Mota initially accepted concerns raised by rival candidate Erika Kokay that the ad could lead voters to infer Jair Bolsonaro’s support, potentially conflicting with Supreme Federal Court restrictions on his political-electoral statements, including those made through third parties. On review, however, Mota concluded that the material was built around Michelle Bolsonaro’s own account and did not show that she had acted as her husband’s intermediary. He said the cited remark — that people would take an interest in politics when they understood that even cooking-gas prices “pass through Congress” — was political in a broad sense but lacked an unmistakable electoral purpose.1
Michelle Bolsonaro’s defense argued that neither the use of Jair Bolsonaro’s name nor his image was prohibited and that the brief references formed part of her personal and family narrative. The judge also found no public indication that the former president opposed his wife’s candidacy, weakening the claim that voters were being misled about his position.2
Kokay’s side drew a narrower conclusion from the outcome. Her defense said the court did not reject the principle that Jair Bolsonaro cannot make political-electoral interventions; rather, it found that this particular appearance did not carry an electoral meaning. The dispute therefore turns less on whether restrictions exist than on what counts as evidence that a candidate is transmitting a prohibited endorsement.
Supporters on the right had reacted sharply to the initial ban. Commentator Rodrigo Constantino called it “dictatorship!!!” in a post sharing the original report of the restriction — a response that reflected opposition to the first ruling, not the court’s subsequent reversal.
3