Financiamento de campanha e jurisdição constitucional na ótica do STF: para uma análise crítica da relação direito e moral à luz do debate Hart-Dworkin

Abstract

Matters relating to the relation between law and morals inspire various theoretical debates, which greatly influence the dominant paradigms in law theory. Among these dialogues, deserves special mention the debate between Hart and Dworkin, precisely because it shows the conception of Hart's legal positivism and, consequently, Dworkin's opposition, especially with regard to discretion. It is therefore a matter of first order, since these two authors exert great influence in the contemporary legal thinking and it reflects the dispute of paradigms of legal positivism and post-positivism in order to guide the modern theory of law. The current relevance of this debate and its consequent theoretical and practical pertinence can be verified by the judgment of the ADI 4650 / DF, in which the Federal Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the financing of election campaigns by companies, and the principles have been mentioned several times as a relevant ground, narrowing the approximations between law and morals. Therefore, this article attempts to analyze the arguments raised at the judgment of the ADI 4650/DF, which sought to declare the unconstitutionality of campaign financing by legal entities, in order to revisit the Hart-Dworkin debate, investigating the contributions offered by these two authors, especially with regard to the relations between law and morals.