AFP’s Use of Free Speech as a Shield Amid Investigations into Political Campaign Financing

Pension fund administrators (AFP) are refusing to disclose political campaign spending and propaganda conducted through their trade organization, despite a journalistic investigation revealing links to a foundation that employed a network of trolls to spread misinformation during the recent presidential election. The Superintendence of Pensions attempted to oversee this matter, but the AFP protected themselves with their constitutional right to free expression, causing the regulator to back down.

The controversy began precisely 113 days ago. On November 10, the Superintendent of Pensions, Osvaldo Macías—who has held the position for a decade—sent a letter to the seven pension fund administrators in the system: Cuprum, Habitat, Provida, Capital, Modelo, Plan Vital, and Unom. In it, he pointed out that they must report within five business days «all advertising, promotion, whether in testimonies, interviews, opinion columns, videos, podcasts, inserts, audiovisual pieces, among others» that had been directly managed by them or by third parties funded by them.

This measure was not casual nor a routine oversight. The Superintendence reacted to findings from a journalistic investigation published by Reportea and Vergara 240, from the School of Journalism at Diego Portales University, which revealed that the Association of AFP had been secretly financing and supporting the foundation Ciudadanos en Acción, an organization dedicated to viralizing political campaigns on social media.

The underlying issue was that, by law, AFPs are prohibited from engaging in political campaigns. However, reports demonstrated that, through their trade organization, the administrators were financing precisely such activities.

It was not merely conventional political propaganda, as Ciudadanos en Acción had hired influencers and digital operators who were part of a troll network dedicated to spreading misinformation.

The foundation is led by Bernardo Fontaine, an economist who was part of the campaign team for elected president José Antonio Kast. Under his direction, the organization drove multiple initiatives: opposing reforms to the pension system, leading campaigns against the 2020 constitutional change, and contesting reforms to the labor and tax systems.

However, the methods employed by the foundation were particularly concerning. They hired influencers to spread messages on social media, compensating them for disseminating content without disclosing the source of the funding. One of these influencers was Matías Lorca, who controlled an account on X (formerly Twitter) that actively participated in a troll network, which not only spread misinformation but also harassed political figures opposing José Antonio Kast, such as former presidential candidate Evelyb Matthei (UDI), who reported a «disgusting campaign» against her leading up to the elections.

In that same troll network also operated a person named Ricardo Inaiman, responsible for the account «Neuroc,» whose identity and activities were exposed by a report from CHV Noticias. Another involved account was «Patito_verde,» linked to Patricio Góngora, a former director of Canal 13 who served as the public affairs manager for the AFP Association just as that organization began to finance Ciudadanos en Acción, as confirmed to Reportea by individuals who have held leadership positions within the organization.

Macías’ letter included a detailed table in which the AFPs were to provide precise information: the details of the entity responsible for the advertising or promotion—corporate name, RUT, legal representative—the characteristics of the disseminated material, and the amount invested in that advertising. This table, however, was never filled out. No information was provided.

AFP Strategy: Unified Refusal and Constitutional Shield

Seven days after the letter was sent, responses began to arrive. They came in a coordinated manner as both Cuprum, Habitat, Plan Vital, Provida, and Modelo replied with a replicated eight-page letter whose content was identical, with the only difference being the logo of each AFP at the start and the signature of the respective manager or deputy manager at the end of the document.

Only AFP Modelo made a slight variation and included an additional paragraph informing about the funding it had provided over the last year to a sports club and to an individual as a donation, both for amounts not exceeding 1.5 million pesos. Nothing more.

The central argument from the administrators was legally sophisticated and strategically designed to block any attempt at oversight. They argued that the Superintendence of Pensions is only legally authorized to oversee advertising that aims «to inform and motivate the hiring of pension fund administration services and the benefits and entitlements» established in the law regulating the industry, as noted by Reportea.

All other communications, according to the AFP’s argument, fell within the protected realm of free expression.

“Regarding the actions of the Pension Fund Administrators that do not constitute advertising or promotion, the fundamental right of freedom of expression fully applies, as enshrined in Article 19 No. 12 of the Political Constitution of the Republic,” they stated in their response to the institution.

Furthermore, they cited a ruling from the Supreme Court in 2022 which, according to their interpretation, allowed the administrators to «participate in the public sphere through acts that do not constitute regulated advertising or promotion.» This ruling had been crucial for AFP Habitat to annul a fine of 2,000 UF imposed by the Superintendence for sending a letter to its affiliates rejecting one of the withdrawal projects from pension funds being processed in Congress.

The AFPs reproduced in their letter reasoning from Supreme Court Minister Jean Pierre Matus, who stated that Habitat’s opinions “are not a form of advertising or information that ‘induces inaccurate interpretations about the reality of the AFP’ or ‘about the benefits, pensions, and benefits they are obliged to grant in accordance with the law,’ but mere opinions protected by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression for which [the Superintendence] lacks legal powers for control or repression.”

Under this logic, the AFP maintained that the funding provided to the Ciudadanos en Acción foundation—through their trade organization—constituted a legitimate act of free expression. They never denied making those contributions, but took refuge in legal arguments to avoid transparency.

It is particularly remarkable that, in the videos disseminated by the foundation—where influencers present carefully crafted arguments opposing the reforms to the pension system—there is no transparency at all indicating that it is paid content, nor is there any mention that this funding, in significant part, comes from the AFP themselves.

The public consumes these messages as if they were spontaneous opinions from independent influencers, when in reality they respond to a communication strategy funded by the pension fund administration industry.

The Ciudadanos en Acción foundation, for its part, has maintained absolute silence. It has not clarified the source of its funding nor explained whether the amounts received secretly from the AFP Association were exclusively allocated to campaigns related to pension reforms or if they also financed other offensives, such as the one they led on social media and in media during the constitutional plebiscite of 2020. Representatives from the foundation have not responded to WhatsApp messages, phone calls, or emails sent by Reportea to collect their comments on these matters.

On the board of the foundation, currently led by Bernardo Fontaine, executives close to businessman Nicolás Ibáñez have participated, as well as the owners of businesses like Sosafe and Predictable Media, the latter being a company specialized in digital political campaigns. The business and political network surrounding Ciudadanos en Acción suggests its influence extends far beyond mere pension issues.

Despite all this evidence, the AFP claimed before the Superintendence that the association does not «participate in or finance political, electoral, or misinformation campaigns.»

The AFP strategy seems to be to deny everything in broad terms while carefully evading any reference to the specific facts documented by the journalistic investigation.

AFP Association Also Joins Opacity Strategy

The Superintendence of Pensions did not only send inquiries to individual AFPs. It also requested information from the Association of AFP (AAFP), after a group of deputies from the Frente Amplio asked for oversight of that entity following the findings revealed in the Reportea and Vergara 240 investigation.

The response from the trade organization was in line with that provided by the individual AFPs, stating that the Superintendence has no authority to oversee the spending it has made on propaganda campaigns. Consequently, the organization simply did not provide any information or explanation about the amounts transferred to Ciudadanos en Acción.

However, the AAFP denied participating in political or religious campaigns, but included in its response letter «a section that seems to act as an implicit justification for the funding provided to the campaigns of the Ciudadanos en Acción foundation.»

“The Association of AFP aims to strengthen the bonds of unity among its members and represent their common interests before public authorities and other entities, promoting the development and strengthening of the pension system in the country. Among its objectives is to disseminate this system through pension education and to collaborate in its improvement, contributing to public policy discussions in pension and labor matters,” stated the letter signed by its general manager, Constanza Bollmann, which Reportea brought to light.

However, two individuals who have held executive positions in the AAFP confirmed to this digital media that Bollmann was fully aware of the funding provided by the entity to Ciudadanos en Acción.

The industry reinforced its stance before the Superintendence, arguing that its trade organization has valid reasons to fund campaigns like those carried out by the foundation. In the responses sent by Habitat, Cuprum, Plan Vital, Modelo, and Provida, the paragraph where they state that their trade organization has among its objectives to disseminate the current pension system, participating in the public debate on pension and labor issues, was verbatim repeated—and also in bold. The coordination was so evident that it was impossible not to notice that it was a joint strategy.

Who Determines What Is Advertising?

On December 1, the Superintendence of Pensions attempted a new move. It sent a letter to the AFP, reiterating that they should deliver the requested information. This time, the agency based its argument on the need to know that information precisely to determine whether it concerned campaigns that needed oversight or not.

“If your Administrator believes it has engaged in activities based on its freedom of opinion, there is no obstacle to communicating those activities to this Superintendence, so that this supervisory body can determine whether they correspond to promotional or advertising activities,” noted the text.

Along with reiterating the instruction, the Superintendence increased pressure on the administrators: “The instruction is reiterated (…) which must be complied with within 10 business days. This is under the warning that this Entity will instruct, in accordance with its legal powers, the opening of a sanctioning file against you for non-compliance with instructions.”

The conflict then escalated to a new level. Now the dispute was over who has the authority to define whether a campaign funded by the AFP constitutes «promotion» of their services or, on the contrary, a legitimate exercise of «free expression.» For the Superintendence, that definition corresponds to the regulator. “Whether a communication constitutes advertising or promotion falls within the jurisdiction of this Superintendence and is part of its legal powers,” they stated in their communication.

But the AFP disagreed. On December 9, Provida, Habitat, Plan Vital, Cuprum, and Modelo once again responded jointly, with an argument that directly challenged the authority of the regulator:

“The Superintendence has no authority to require a supervised subject to send all types of background information, so that it can determine whether it constitutes an exercise of their freedom of expression or advertising or promotion.”

According to the AFP, they had always communicated to the Superintendence all advertising and promotion disseminated in mass media and other platforms. At least, that is how they interpreted it: the advertising directly motivating the hiring of pension fund administration services.

“There is no legal imperative obliging the AFPs to send the Superintendence information other than advertising or promotion, even for this to be ‘classified’,” the administrators argued.

Based on this interpretation, they filed a petition against the Superintendence’s resolution insisting on the submission of information. Thus, they not only refused to provide the background but also chose to legally challenge the regulator’s authority to request it.

At this point, one administrator partially separated from the collective strategy. AFP Capital responded separately, indicating to the regulator that it had not found information different from what it had previously submitted. It did not provide new information, but at least it did not join the collective petition against the regulator.

In the same line, the AFP Association maintained its rigid stance, and in another letter sent to the Superintendence on December 23, insisted that there were no legal powers to oversee it.

“We state that in addition to transgressing the scope of its competencies, the Superintendence, through its request for information, is disturbing the autonomy and functioning of this intermediate body,” they indicated in their communication, using a more confrontational tone.

Did the Superintendence Yield to the Power of the AFP?

On December 29, the Superintendence of Pensions made a decision that would mark the end of its oversight attempt. It sent a six-page document to AFP Habitat, Cuprum, Provida, Plan Vital, and Modelo, informing them that it partially accepted the petitions they had filed. The agency withdrew the warning of initiating a sanctioning process for refusing to comply with instructions, Reportea revealed.

What arguments did the Superintendence present to justify this retreat? According to the letter, the determination was significantly influenced by the fact that media had been reviewed and no advertising pieces had been found that were not subsequently reported by the administrators:

“This Service conducted a thorough search in mass media, such as testimonies, interviews, opinion columns, videos, podcasts, inserts, audiovisual pieces, among others, without finding any piece or message that qualified as advertising or promotion, directly or indirectly, not reported to this Superintendence,” explained the agency.

The reasoning of the regulator was, at the very least, questionable. The journalistic investigation had not revealed that the AFP were disseminating unreported advertising directly in mass media. What it had uncovered was a much more complex setup, as the AFP were financing a foundation through their guild, which in turn hired influencers and operated troll networks that disseminated misinformation on social media.

It was, in essence, an indirect scheme of financing for political propaganda and digital dirty war operations, not traditional advertising in conventional media.

However, the Superintendence opted for a restrictive interpretation of its own powers and closed the case. In the document, although it theoretically defended its oversight powers, it ultimately did not insist on obtaining information regarding the campaigns financed by the AFP to determine whether they constituted «advertising.»

This surrender also extended to the request for information to the Association of AFP. On January 21, the oversight body sent a letter to the guild with the same argument: they reviewed media and did not find unreported advertising. In that document, the Superintendence did not even mention the other specific requests made to the guild: «to indicate if from the AAFP they had informed any AFP about the use of resources regarding advertising or promotion, and if the administrators had provided them with ‘guidelines’ regarding it,» highlighted the cited media.

The letters in which the Superintendence communicated that oversight was not continuing completely omitted any mention of the pieces disseminated by the Ciudadanos en Acción foundation thanks to the funding from the AFP. It was as if that network did not exist, as if the journalistic investigation had never been published.

When Reportea directly asked the Superintendence about this point, the response was evasive:

“The oversight included reviewing content disseminated in publicly accessible media that, according to its characteristics and available background, could eventually fall within the regulated hypotheses of advertising or promotion. All of this was carried out entirely under the powers and authority of regulation and oversight that the legislation grants to the Superintendence of Pensions,” stated the agency.

In another response sent to Reportea, the Superintendence added:

“In exercising its legal powers, the Superintendence of Pensions conducted an oversight process according to its usual procedures, which included both the formal request for background and independent review of information available in publicly accessible media. As a result of this oversight, no infringement of the current regulatory framework or pieces of advertising that had not been timely reported were identified.”

Loose Threads Yet to be Clarified

Despite the closure of the oversight by the Superintendence of Pensions, the processes initiated after the Reportea and Vergara 240 report have not completely concluded. Two institutional statements remain pending that could shed light on aspects of the web that are still not clarified.

One of them pertains to the Internal Revenue Service (SII). The deputies, led by parliamentarian Gonzalo Winter, who requested the Superintendence to investigate the link between the AFP Association and the Ciudadanos en Acción foundation, included among their requests that it be reported whether transfers of funds from the AAFP to the foundation were made under the donation law with tax benefits.

That is, whether the AFP received tax benefits for financing covert political and misinformation operations.

Due to that request, on November 20, the Superintendence of Pensions referred the query to the
Internal Revenue Service (SII), but it is still unclear whether the tax agency is investigating the case and, if so, at what stage the process is.

The other open front is at the Ministry of Economy. On February 4, the Division of Associativity and Cooperatives—charged with overseeing trade associations—sent a letter to the AAFP requesting that it explain its ties to Ciudadanos en Acción. The deadline for them to provide any response to this request falls in mid-March.

La entrada AFP’s Use of Free Speech as a Shield Amid Investigations into Political Campaign Financing se publicó primero en El Ciudadano.