Before the ban, what Brazil’s presidential candidates were saying about online betting

A g1 review of the government plans submitted to Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court (TSE) by 13 presidential candidates found that seven of them mentioned betting. The plans matter because they show how politicians were thinking about online gambling before any formal prohibition debate took over: as a consumer-debt issue, a social-benefits issue, a public-health issue, and, in some cases, a public-policy problem to be tightened up rather than banned outright.

1. Lula: his plan dealt with betting in two places: health policy and economic measures aimed at consumer protection. On the health side, it said the government would expand professionals and care strategies for people affected by gambling. On the economic side, it promised to keep monitoring household and corporate debt, maintain guarantee funds, preserve controls on excessive spending in online betting, and improve the rules for credit offers and responsible lending. The plan did not propose banning bets.
2. Flávio Bolsonaro: his plan proposed banning the use of social-program funds for betting and launching educational campaigns about the risks of debt linked to gambling. It also said Caixa would expand financial guidance to help people manage budgets, get out of debt, and save. In a separate section on women’s economic autonomy, the plan mentioned financial guidance programs that would include protecting family income from the impact of betting.
3. Ronaldo Caiado: his plan called for stricter rules and a ban on advertising. The source text cuts off before the rest of his proposal, but the line already shows the direction: less tolerance for promotion, more pressure on operators.
4. The broader pattern: among the seven candidates who mentioned betting, the policy language clustered around four themes: restricting the use of social-money for wagers, banning advertising, tightening oversight, and dealing with compulsive gambling. The same plans also linked betting to organized crime and to sports financing, which is a useful reminder that in Brazil this debate was never just about consumer protection.

For PSPs, acquirers, and banks, the useful bit is not the campaign theater. It is the policy map: online betting was already being framed as a place where governments could control spend limits, restrict funding sources, and police advertising. That is usually where payment rules start before they turn into something more formal.