The million dollar question: who paid for the makeup?
Lilly Téllez, the PAN senator who seems to have a detector of institutional nonsense, has just dropped a bomb. It’s not a missile, it’s a letter. But with 21 questions so sharp that they cut off any attempt at evasion.
Addressed to the president of the Senate, Laura Itzel Castillo, the letter demands clear accounts about that beauty salon that operated inside the Commission Tower. A place where, apparently, the perfect hairstyle was prioritized over legislative work.
“Any opacity… in the allocation of spaces for purposes unrelated to the legislative function is legally unacceptable,” warns Téllez in his writing.
And here comes the good thing. The senator does not ask for half-explanations. He goes straight to the bone with questions that are a basic manual for detecting irregularities.
The 21 uncomfortable questions
Who authorized this? With what money? Was there a contract? Was rent paid? The questions are so specific it hurts. Ask for a copy of the official letter, the agreement, the contract. Requires the RFC of the business and invoices.
But there is one that resonates with special cynicism: how do you justify a beauty salon when there is a lack of space for advisors and commissions?
Another gem: it mentions documented purchases from a marketer for almost 200 thousand pesos in makeup and brushes. What bag did that money come from? From the treasury? The question hangs in the air, waiting for an answer that will probably never come.
And then there is the issue of access. Was it exclusive for brunettes? Téllez requests that the complete list of users be made public, with name, position and service received. Something tells me that this list will be more elusive than a political commitment in an election year.
The misogynistic defense and the ghost boleros
While Téllez plays the prosecutor, another senator, Beatriz Mojica from Morena, brings out the misogyny card. Their argument: there have been boleros here for 50 years and no one bothers.
“I think it’s an extremely misogynistic topic…no one has noticed that boleros clean men’s shoes,” Mojica declared.
The comparison is curious. On the one hand, an informal and visible service (the boleros) in front of a commercial establishment installed with luxury supplies paid for… perhaps with public money. It is not the same, Madam Senator.
In addition, the boleros charge 35 pesos for service directly to the client. There is no evidence (for now) that the Senate buys their bitumen or pays their salary.
Perfect timing and selective amnesia
The most revealing thing is question 15. Castillo had said that the room “was nothing out of the ordinary” and that we all “have to be well presented”. But after the media scandal… closure! What changed? Ethics or cameras?
Téllez also asks if this establishment had been closed before and then reopened. Because in this country historical memory is conspicuous by its absence, especially when it is convenient.
In the end, the message is clear:
- Total transparency or nothing
- Generic answers will not be accepted
- This smacks of privilege disguised as aesthetic necessity
While millions grapple with the economy, some in the Senate seem concerned about having perfectly plucked eyebrows. Irony hurts more than a clamp.
