Down Arrow Button Icon

As the House impeachment saga unfolds in frantic and dramatic fashion, it’s easy to forget the spark that instigated the proceedings began with something as pedestrian as political donations opening the door to lobbying on behalf of foreign interests.

Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, a pair seemingly unknown in the political world, donated more than $325,000 to a pro-Trump super PAC and hundreds of thousands more to other federal GOP candidates. In exchange, they skyrocketed onto the political scene.

Parnas and Fruman helped set up the meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and President Donald Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani that was a precursor to the phone call at the heart of the impeachment inquiry.

Trump’s Ukraine call has since drawn attention to how blurred the line that separates government and monied special interest groups has become.

Part of that gray area comes from the growth of the lobbying industry. An increasing number of businesses hire political insiders to help foreign and domestic clients with specific interests get the ear—and the vote—of legislators.

More than 170 currently registered lobbyists had previously worked for the Trump administration over three years, seven of whom had been on his cabinet, according to Open Secrets data. Another 220 lobbyists had worked for President Barack Obama’s administration, five of whom were in his cabinet, over eight years.

And it’s not shocking that government employees are increasingly landing on K Street to capitalize on their Rolodexes. The industry has become lucrative. In 2018, lobbying raked in $3.42 billion.

Lobbying, or seeking to influence a public official on a specific issue, is not inherently a bad thing. But problems arise when a corporate interest behind a lobbying effort doesn’t match public interest.

Trump’s 2017 executive order included an ethics pledge to prevent this kind of overlap. Among the rules laid out by Trump: former lobbyists are barred from working on behalf of the U.S. government on the same specific issue for which they had previously lobbied for a period of two years; a lifetime lobbying ban imposed on anyone from his administration lobbying the U.S. government on behalf of a foreign government; and a five-year “cooling off” period restricting those employees from lobbying the agency they worked for.

But there are exceptions to the rules, as well as ways to get around them.

Waivers

Federal ethics rules can be circumvented by a waiver, and because of this, former agricultural lobbyist Jeffrey Sands was appointed a senior agricultural adviser for the EPA.

Sands’ October 2017 waiver request disclosed that he had lobbied for Syngenta, focusing on “a wide range of agricultural issues including pesticides, food labeling, genetically modified organisms, biofuels and biotechnology and renewable fuels,” but argued that the EPA lacked qualified senior staff. Sands’ waiver request was approved by former White House counsel Don McGahn.

Syngenta, under the Obama administration, had been fined $4.8 million for violating pesticide regulations. In February 2018, that fine was reduced to $150,000 and required worker training in pesticide usage. Sands has denied involvement in this decision and an Associated Press report indicated that fine adjustment discussions might have preceded Sands’ appointment. Sands stayed in the EPA for a few months and resigned shortly after the decision in March 2018.

With a waiver, Sands was well within all set within federal ethics guidelines. But creating ways to circumvent them undermines why they exist in the first place, Craig Holman, Public Citizen’s Capitol Hill lobbyist on ethics, lobbying and campaign finance rules told Fortune.

“These hires present direct conflicts of interest,” said Holman, who has filed ethics complaints against the White House and other federal agencies, alleging that 29 federal employees did not comply with the president’s executive order. “You can’t mix business with government official duties.”

Avoiding Disclosures

Lobbyists are required to disclose who is paying them and whom they lobbied to unmask potential conflicts of interest. The problem is that lobbyists don’t always fill out the paperwork designed to bring transparency to the foreign or domestic interests they represent.

More than 1,600 lobbyists who lobbied in 2018 did not report activity in 2019, according to Open Secrets data, and most of these lobbyists continued working for the same employer or industry.

“We don’t condemn the argument of people taking whatever job they want—they are experts in topics and the inner workings of the Hill,” said Dan Auble, the senior researcher for Open Secrets. “But most don’t end up registering or putting their names on paper disclosing who they are representing and what they are doing for them. It makes it harder for the public to hold people accountable for how policies are made.”

Many lobbyists don’t register due to the requirement that a registrant spends 20% of their time lobbying. Some who do the work of lobbying don’t meet that threshold.

Others don’t label themselves as lobbyists; they might be “strategic advisers,” offering advice and a roadmap for approaching former colleagues without actually violating any laws.

Enacted in 1938, the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) specifically requires agents who engage in certain foreign activities, including lobbying, to register and disclose their relationships. It’s purpose is to inform the U.S. government and citizens of the sources and people who are attempting to influence U.S. public opinion, policy, and laws.

These filings increased after the Mueller report, which landed Trump associate Paul Manafort in jail for not registering. Congressional reports for the first half of 2017 and 2018 showed that the number of registrations from Middle Eastern countries including Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iraq grew, as have filings from the Ukraine and Congo.

FARA is a notoriously broad statute that some advocates say is written so vaguely that even nonprofits or journalists would need to register. But given the recent meddling of foreign interests in the U.S. political process, Trump appointee John Demers, who heads the Department of Justice’s national security division, vowed to make FARA an enforcement priority. The Department of Justice lists 12 cases of FARA violations. Eight have taken place since 2017.

“FARA enforcement is still woefully deficient,” said Ben Freeman, director of the Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative. “Technically, they registered but we have no idea what they are doing. It’s like transparency lite.”

Advocates pushing for a stronger enforcement of FARA are particularly worried about the potential of sensitive information being shared by people who cross over into companies that lobby for foreign interests. Buck McKeon, the former chairman of the House foreign services committee, who later became the chairman and CEO of the McKeon Group lobbying firm; and General Jim Mattis, former defense secretary, who went on to reclaim his position on the board of defense company General Dynamics, are two examples.

“It’s a concern because they had clearances but are now paid exorbitantly by foreign governments who could benefit from the info they have,” explained Freeman.

Over the years, there have been a number of congressional proposals to keep lobbying in check. Few of those have gained traction. Some pieces of legislation have been proposed by some heavy hitting congressional delegates recently, but none have been taken up by their committees yet.

“The big problem is that the people who would need to act are the people who would benefit immensely from the current system,” said Freeman.

And former Congress members and their staff, Freeman says, are some of the lobbying world’s most sought after hires.