The key responsibility lies with the Ministry of Defense, which is legally obligated to support a service member through the transition to civilian life rather than simply “releasing” them. In 2022, the ministry evaluated its transition system and announced that, together with the service branches, it would seek ways to improve this support to reduce the problems that arise precisely from the abrupt change of environment. And it doesn’t act alone: the state builds the system together with the Netherlands Veterans Institute, the pension fund, and the trade unions — meaning support spans several life domains at once: health, finances, housing, employment.

The logic of a “managed transition” also has a concrete embodiment — transitional housing. In a number of countries that adopted this philosophy, the veteran receives temporary housing for a defined period along with a personal case manager and financial counselor, who help build a plan: employment, education, debt repayment, savings. The idea is not simply to provide a roof, but to provide a structured environment for the first months — when the risk of collapse is highest — and gradually lead the person toward independent living.

For Ukraine, the takeaway is simple: the moment of discharge cannot be left to chance. The cheapest way to avoid expensive problems later is to build in a support phase right after service: a single case manager who guides the veteran through health, housing, finances, and work for the first six months. Return should be a managed transition, not a leap into the void.

The post The Dutch Model: Return as a Managed Transition, Not a Leap appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

The reason is trust. The brain listens differently when it feels understood — and a veteran helping a veteran creates the kind of connection that can’t be faked. Where standard psychotherapy hits a wall — the military “be tough” culture, distrust of civilian doctors — a fellow soldier gets through immediately. In clinical programs that integrate veteran-to-veteran mentorship, dropout rates fall and engagement rises.

The effect works both ways — and that’s the key detail. When a veteran supports another through healing, it reinforces their own progress and restores a sense of purpose — one of the first things a person loses after leaving service. The mentor doesn’t just help — he recovers faster himself, gaining structure, responsibility, and meaning.

The model is already scaled across countries. Research shows peer support among veterans is tied to measurable improvements: greater social support, reduced clinical symptoms, higher self-efficacy — factors that also boost job readiness. In the US, programs like Vet-to-Vet and the women’s network WoVeN operate; in the UK, peer support is being embedded into the NHS.

For Ukraine, the takeaway is direct: there’s no need to wait until there are enough psychologists for everyone. A mutual-support system can be built right now — by training veterans themselves to be mentors. It’s cheap, scales quickly, and delivers a double effect: both the one receiving help and the one giving it recover.

The post Veteran to Veteran: Why the Best Therapist Shares the Same Experience appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

Schools. The American Troops to Teachers program has run since 1993 — and in that time over 100,000 veterans have become teachers. The program solves two problems at once: the shortage of teachers and the employment of veterans. Into the classroom they bring structure, authority, and the ability to serve as a role model — especially for boys from single-parent families.

Nature and emergency services. Firefighters, rescuers, forest protection. The American Veterans Fire Corps has put over 1,000 veterans through wildfire work since 2011 — most of whom went on to be hired by state and federal crews. The point is that this kind of work recreates the military environment: a team, a mission, physical demand, and the sense of protecting others.

Construction and reconstruction. The most relevant direction for Ukraine. The American Helmets to Hardhats program deliberately moves veterans into the construction industry — with profession training from scratch and direct access to employers. Discipline, work in difficult conditions, and logistical thinking convert directly here. For a country that will have to rebuild its cities, veterans are a ready-made talent pool for the industry that will define the next decade.

Why it works. The best fields for integration are those that preserve the “military frame” — team, mission, discipline — but redirect it toward a peacetime goal. A veteran’s qualities don’t need to be broken down; they can be applied right away.

For Ukraine. Instead of viewing future veterans solely through the lens of “rehabilitation,” we should build integration channels around the principle of a preserved mission: education, emergency services, construction and reconstruction, mentorship in youth and sports programs, and public service with priority hiring. A veteran who passes discipline and values on to the young is not a budget expense on rehabilitation, but an investment that returns to society many times over.

The post How to Integrate Veterans: Global Experience appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

The results proved telling. Over two years of the pilot, nearly 500 veterans went through VA FARMS, while over 1,300 people were reached through program activities such as demonstrations, training, and community discussions. Studies of participants showed real improvements in physical and mental health: better sleep, nutrition, and exercise, alongside reductions in anxiety, pain, depression, and the use of medication and substances. The approach combines two things at once — psychological recovery and vocational retraining: agritherapy integrates mental health care with agricultural training, giving the veteran both treatment and a new profession. In parallel, a whole network of community organizations has grown in the US — the Farmer Veteran Coalition, Armed to Farm, Growing Veterans — connecting veterans with farmers, land, and mentors.

For Ukraine, this case is especially relevant. In a country with a powerful agricultural sector and millions of hectares of land, agritherapy could become a natural bridge between service and civilian life. It doesn’t require building new clinics — it requires land, mentors, and structure. The veteran gains not only psychological recovery but also a profession, an income, and the sense of growing something again — both literally and figuratively.

The post Agritherapy: How the Land Brings Veterans Back to Life appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

At the practical level, three elements stand out as worth studying. First, since January 2024, Germany operates a dedicated Veteranenbüro — a centralized veterans’ support office with permanent staff, serving as a single point of entry for all requests and supporting the national veterans’ movement. Second, since 2010, the Bundeswehr has maintained a dedicated PTSD Commissioner — a coordinator responsible for supporting combat-traumatized soldiers and serving as a personal contact for anyone seeking help. Third, the Bundeswehr has actively developed internet-based therapy for veterans with PTSD — an anonymous online cognitive-behavioral program that lowers the barrier to treatment and reaches those who would never walk into a therapist’s office.

For Ukraine, this offers a ready-made blueprint: a single veterans’ office with real staff, a dedicated PTSD coordinator within the Armed Forces structure, and digital mental health tools. None of this requires billion-euro budgets — but all of it requires organized lobbying pressure to turn these ideas into law.

The post The Bundeswehr and Veteran Rehabilitation: Tools That Work appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

There are several key players. FIDF (Friends of the Israel Defense Forces) is an American nonprofit that funds the Israeli military from abroad. In 2025, it distributed a record $132 million, opened ten mental health clinics across Israel, and broke ground on the country’s first dedicated rehabilitation campus — in partnership with the Ministry of Defense. In parallel, ZDVO (Zahal Disabled Veterans Organization) manages the Beit Halochem center network and systematically lobbies budget decisions in the Knesset. The result of this pressure is concrete: the Knesset passed a law doubling state funding for organizations working with wounded soldiers, setting a minimum annual allocation of $45 million.

However, despite its obvious benefits, this system still needs improvement. According to the Knesset Research Center, between January 2024 and July 2025, 279 IDF soldiers attempted suicide, and combat soldiers accounted for 78% of all suicides in Israel in 2024. Veterans’ advocates openly pressure parliament — demanding lawmakers stop deliberating and start acting.

The Israeli model is not simply a healthcare system. It is an ecosystem where diaspora funds, veterans’ associations, and parliamentary allies act in coordination — converting public demand into budget line items. For Ukraine, the lesson is not to copy the structure, but to understand the mechanism: rehabilitation becomes a priority only when backed by organized institutional pressure.

The post Israel’s Veteran Rehabilitation Model appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

A defining feature of this model is the strong link between defense programs and regional
economies. Production of aircraft, missile systems, and defense electronics is distributed
across multiple states, creating thousands of jobs within congressional districts. This naturally
encourages lawmakers to support related programs in federal budget negotiations. At the same
time, the so-called revolving door mechanism — where former government officials, military
officers, or congressional staff move into private-sector roles — helps companies navigate the
complex policymaking environment. The result is a lobbying ecosystem where national security,
technological innovation, and regional economic interests intersect.

The post Defense Contractors and the U.S. Pentagon Budget appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

The most decisive arena of influence lies within national capitals.

Professional lobbyists engage directly with ministries of energy, economy, and finance, helping shape member states’ negotiation mandates before decisions reach the EU Council level. Sanctions design, LNG transition frameworks, and regulatory adjustments are often determined domestically before being formalized in Brussels. Arguments are framed around energy security, industrial continuity, and system stability. The result is a sophisticated model of multi-level implementation lobbying, where professional intermediaries coordinate between business, governments, and EU institutions to align political commitments with economic and infrastructural realities.

The post Energy Companies and the EU’s Transition Away from Russian Gas appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

Industry representatives argue that the rapid growth of China’s automotive sector poses a serious threat to the stability and competitiveness of the U.S. auto industry.

During a hearing in the House of Representatives chaired by Congressman John Moolenaar, lobbyists emphasized that heavy state subsidies and low prices for Chinese vehicles could “flood” the U.S. market, displacing domestic manufacturers and creating unfair competitive conditions.

The appeal also calls for preserving existing restrictions on the import of technologies from China, which effectively bar vehicles containing certain Chinese-made components, and for supporting the development of domestic electric vehicle and battery production in the United States.

This move by the auto lobby reflects broader industry concerns about global competition and government intervention in the sector, and forms part of the ongoing trade debate between the United States and China.

The post U.S. Auto Lobby Urges Protection of the Market from Chinese Vehicles appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

Throughout the battle for WBD’s assets, both Netflix and its competitor Paramount Skydance waged an intensive lobbying campaign in Washington. Netflix’s leadership, including co-CEO Ted Sarandos, held meetings with the U.S. president and key lawmakers, emphasizing the economic benefits of the deal and seeking to ease antitrust concerns. The company significantly increased its lobbying expenditures in 2025 and hired experienced Washington lobbyists to shape a favorable political environment.

Paramount Skydance, which issued a hostile counteroffer worth roughly $108 billion, also mobilized a powerful network of legal and lobbying firms with deep ties in the federal government. The team included former senior officials from the U.S. Department of Justice and influential political strategists who worked to persuade regulators and lawmakers of the advantages of their competing proposal.

At the center of this struggle were lobbying firms that worked simultaneously for both sides, along with allies closely connected to the president’s administration.

Despite the intense competition and political pressure, Netflix’s acquisition of the Warner Bros. studio and HBO Max became one of the largest deals in modern media history. The company now moves toward integrating the legendary Hollywood studio into its global platform, as regulators prepare for detailed antitrust reviews and industry stakeholders continue to voice concerns about excessive media concentration.

The post How Lobbyists Paved Netflix’s Path to Acquiring Warner Bros. Discovery appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

The new rules cover a wide range of lobbying activities, including meetings with politicians, participation in consultations, preparation of policy documents, public information campaigns, and other methods of influencing decision-making in the EU. In this way, the directive encompasses all major mechanisms through which a third country can advance its interests at the level of European institutions.

The new rules may also apply to Ukrainian lobbyists, since Ukraine is considered a third country with respect to the EU. This means that any organizations or individuals acting on behalf of the Ukrainian state or Ukrainian organizations to influence EU policy and legislation will be required to register their activities and publicly disclose their content. This approach creates a transparent and legitimate mechanism for interaction between Ukrainian representatives and European institutions.

The European Parliament’s decision is a response to growing concerns about the influence of foreign states on EU policy. The new rules will make it possible to monitor the activities of third-country lobbyists, including those from Ukraine, and will enhance accountability. Experts note that this could strengthen trust in Ukrainian organizations and representatives who operate transparently and comply with the rules, while also protecting European institutions from opaque influence.

At the same time, implementing the directive introduces new administrative obligations. Ukrainian organizations and lobbyists operating in the EU will need to document meetings, campaigns, and other activities that fall under the definition of “lobbying.” The success of the directive will depend not only on the formal rules but also on the ability of national and European institutions to effectively monitor compliance and ensure open access to data. Ultimately, the new rules represent an important step toward transparency and accountability in lobbying activities, including for the Ukrainian segment.

The post EU Adopts Transparency Rules for “Third-Country” Lobbyists: What This Means for Ukraine appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

Since the beginning of the year, at least 12 companies have signed contracts with leading Washington lobbying firms, including those connected to allies of the Trump administration. Lobbyists help companies establish contacts with government agencies and communicate the complexities and prospects of the industry to lawmakers.

For example, Lithium Americas received a federal loan of $2.26 billion in exchange for 5% of its shares, while United States Antimony signed a $245 million contract with the Pentagon. Other players, including MP Materials and NioCorp, are also seeking substantial government loans and partnerships with state participation.

The White House has shifted focus from traditional subsidies to partial ownership in such companies to counter China’s dominance in critical mineral supply chains. Government support is considered essential due to private investors’ cautiousness and the high risks associated with developing new extraction and processing technologies.

This trend highlights the growing role of lobbyists in shaping U.S. policy on critical minerals and underscores the strategic importance of the sector for national security. At the same time, a recently signed agreement between the U.S. and Ukraine on joint investment in Ukrainian natural resources opens new opportunities for cooperation in this field. Under the agreement, a joint investment fund has been established, with each side contributing $75 million. The fund will focus on projects in energy, infrastructure, and critical mineral extraction, allowing the U.S. preferential access to Ukrainian resources in exchange for investments in their development and infrastructure restoration.

The post Critical Mineral Companies Ramp Up Lobbying in the U.S. appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

Annual spending on lobbying in the European Union rose from €113 million in 2023 to €151 million in 2025, marking a 33.6% increase over two years. A third of all lobbying expenditures (€49 million) comes from just ten companies, seven of which are headquartered in the United States.

The largest increases in spending were recorded by:

​•​ Amazon (+€4.3 million),

​•​ Microsoft and Meta (+€2 million each),

​•​ and the business lobby group DIGITALEUROPE (+€1.25 million), which includes many of the same corporations among its members.

According to a blog post by Corporate Europe Observatory, major IT companies held on average more than one lobbying meeting per day with European Commission officials, totaling 146 meetings in just the first half of 2025.

Supported by the Trump administration, Big Tech firms are actively pressuring the EU to weaken or delay the implementation of key regulations such as the Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act), the Digital Markets Act (DMA), and the Digital Services Act (DSA). Their efforts are reportedly backed by some European political parties — in particular, the European People’s Party (EPP) held a disproportionately high number of meetings with technology lobbyists.

The number of “lobby actors” — think tanks, associations, companies, and intermediaries promoting tech interests in Brussels — has also grown from 565 to 733 since 2023. This rise is partly due to the emergence of new AI-related companies opening offices in the Belgian capital.

“There are now more full-time lobbyists influencing the EU’s digital policy than there are Members of the European Parliament,” notes Corporate Europe Observatory. The organization adds: “The trend is clear — the tech industry is outspending all other corporate sectors traditionally known for their lobbying influence in the EU. For example, the top 10 digital companies are spending three times more than the top 10 pharmaceutical, financial, and automotive firms, and twice as much as the energy sector.”

In addition to direct lobbying, technology firms spend over €9 million annually on consultancies, PR agencies, and think tanks to amplify their messaging, which has recently become increasingly hostile to regulation.

Amid pressure from both the United States and within the EU, Members of the European Parliament have warned against weakening key legislation to appease tech giants or the U.S. administration. So far, the European Commission has resisted such pressure, continuing investigations and imposing fines on Google, Meta, TikTok, and others. However, the report’s authors caution that deregulation lobbying is entering a new phase.

“Instead of beating the drum for deregulation, the European Commission should protect the public interest from Big Tech influence and strengthen the enforcement of its existing digital rules,” the researchers conclude.

The post Lobbying expenses of IT companies in Europe have increased by 33% over the past two years — report appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

The summit’s program focused on the key challenges of European policy and governance:
• “Restoring Trust in EU Politics: Can the New Rules Deliver on Transparency and Accountability?” — on transparency and trust in decision-making;
• “Green vs Industrial Deal: Backtrack or Breakthrough?” — on finding a balance between green transformation and industrial development;
• “AI for Public Affairs: How Digital Tools Can Enhance Advocacy in the Future?” — on the role of artificial intelligence in the evolution of lobbying;
• “Navigating Global Geopolitics: From Crisis to Opportunity” — on adapting communication strategies to global challenges.

The Public Affairs Summit served as a platform for sharing experience, developing international partnerships, and strengthening the presence of Ukrainian professionals within the European community.

LOBBY CLUB thanks its European partners for the invitation and the opportunity to take part in a professional discussion on the future of ethical lobbying in the EU.

The post In Brussels, the Public Affairs Summit 2025 took place appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

Corporate sustainability means that businesses are responsible not only for profits but also for their impact on society and the environment. Under this principle, companies must ensure that their suppliers do not exploit workers, harm ecosystems, or violate ethical standards.

However, large corporations argue that the new law is overly complicated and expensive to implement. They claim it creates excessive bureaucracy and makes European companies less competitive on the global market.

The collective letter is a clear example of lobbying in action. Powerful business groups are trying to influence political decisions to weaken or cancel regulations they see as too strict. Outwardly, they justify this by pointing to economic concerns, but in practice, they are defending their own business interests.

Critics warn that repealing or softening this law could have serious consequences: weaker environmental protections, more labor abuses, and less corporate accountability for social and ecological impact.

At the same time, companies that have already invested in sustainable practices could find themselves at a disadvantage compared to those avoiding such commitments. EU institutions have not yet officially responded to the letter, but corporate sustainability is expected to become one of the main topics of political debate in Brussels in the coming months.

The post Top Companies Urge the EU to Scrap the Corporate Sustainability Law appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

Key players include OpenAI, Anthropic, Scale AI, and NVIDIA. While the first two companies previously spoke about the “ethical development” and “safe use” of AI, they are now hiring experienced lobbyists and creating permanent offices in the capital. NVIDIA, which produces critically important chips for AI systems, has officially registered lobbyists in Washington for the first time. Scale AI, already collaborating with the Pentagon, is actively strengthening its position in defense technologies.

The goal of these efforts is to influence future regulation while maintaining the most flexible conditions for themselves. The companies advocate for so-called “smart regulation,” which in practice means minimal government intervention. At the same time, they push initiatives to secure federal grants and simplify procedures for building data centers, increasing energy capacity, and accessing infrastructure.

A particularly notable development was the U.S. House of Representatives’ decision to impose a ten-year moratorium on local AI regulation. This temporarily strips states of the right to enact their own laws controlling the use of artificial intelligence. Critics view this move as an attempt by corporations to centralize control over the industry and avoid multi-level restrictions.

The U.S. administration, for its part, increasingly emphasizes economic competition with China rather than the risks of the technology itself. The argument of global leadership in AI has become the rationale for loosening regulatory requirements and providing more open support to the sector.

At the same time, experts warn that under the pressure of lobbyists, social risks of AI — including discrimination, privacy violations, threats to creators, and mass workforce reductions — may remain uncontrolled. Today, corporations, rather than the government or civil society, largely set the agenda in the AI sphere.

Artificial intelligence in the U.S. is no longer just a technology — it has become a political factor. While some see this as a path to innovative breakthroughs, others caution that without real oversight of the AI lobby, the future may be less secure than its creators promise.

The post AI Lobby Raises Flag in Washington: How Tech Giants Are Shaping the Rules of the Game appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

1. Independence as a Core Resource
The greatest strength of a lobbyist lies in their lack of “corporate lenses.” An in-house GR specialist is integrated into the company’s structure, thinking within the framework of its internal culture, policies, and constraints. An independent consultant operates differently:

• they are not tied to internal conflicts or corporate bureaucracy;

• they can propose bolder solutions and approaches that might seem too risky in an internal environment;

• they are able to represent business interests in a broader context, going beyond the company’s own perspective.

Research shows that independent lobbyists hold a unique advantage: they build expertise through working with diverse clients and across different industries. This enables them to view situations more comprehensively and objectively.

2. Higher Expertise and “Economies of Scale”
When a company maintains an internal GR department, its employees focus only on the needs of one organization. Independent lobbyists, by contrast, serve multiple clients simultaneously, which accelerates skill development. In economics, this is called the “learning-by-doing effect”: external consultants are constantly improving by repeating similar tasks across different clients and within different political or regulatory contexts.

3. Broader Networks and Influence Channels
For a lobbyist, it is important to know not only the legislation but also the people: which companies support which initiatives, which politicians work with which groups, and which advocacy coalitions are forming around specific issues. Independent consultants gain access to such networks thanks to their diverse clientele. This makes them more effective than in-house specialists, who are limited by the boundaries of their own industry.

4. Flexibility and Rapid Response
When a company faces a crisis—such as a technological accident, new stringent regulations, or a high-profile media case—it needs immediate solutions. Independent lobbyists do not require time to align with internal corporate policies and are ready to act straight away. An example from the U.S.: after the 2010 BP oil disaster, energy companies rapidly increased their reliance on external lobbyists, as the challenges became more complex and demanded innovative, non-standard solutions.

5. Higher Effectiveness in Complex and Technical Issues
In-house GR departments perform well with routine tasks, but when legislation involves high-tech solutions or specialized regulatory requirements, external lobbyists are the clear choice. They bring niche expertise that would be too costly for a company to maintain internally.

6. Economic Efficiency
Maintaining an in-house GR department requires ongoing expenses for salaries, office space, and training. Independent lobbyists work on a project basis: the company pays only for specific tasks, which often makes this model more cost-effective, especially for mid-sized businesses.

Conclusion: Collaboration, Not Competition
The broader the retrospective experience of a lobbyist, the more valuable they become as a specialist. Independent practice ensures diversity of projects, free from the constraints of one corporate environment. Importantly, GR specialists and lobbyists are not competitors but colleagues, as their roles are distinct in scope and execution. Highly qualified GR departments should work directly with lobbyists to form strong and effective teams, rather than dividing the market or duplicating structures.

The post Why Independent Lobbyists Work Differently — and How They Differ from GR Specialists appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

Recent examples confirm this trend. For instance, Google organized a behind-the-scenes campaign against a California data privacy law by funding small business associations that publicly spoke in their own name, even though the corporation was the actual initiator. Such “proxy groups” allow major players to avoid direct responsibility and create the illusion of broad public support for their interests.

Despite the existence of the Lobbying Disclosure Act, there remain many “gray areas” in regulation. For example, consultants, lawyers, or strategic advisers who do not call themselves “lobbyists” may avoid reporting obligations. Political committees and nonprofit organizations can also finance campaigns without disclosing their ultimate donors. This creates a situation where formal transparency masks actual opacity. Critics insist on the need for reforms — from broadening the definition of “lobbying” to tightening control over the financing of indirect campaigns.

At present, several reform directions are being discussed in the U.S. to correct systemic flaws. In particular, it is proposed to strengthen oversight of lobbying campaigns at the state level, where regulation is often much weaker than at the federal level, allowing hidden campaigns to proceed without real accountability. Another idea is to make lobbyist reports far more detailed: instead of general categories of expenses, requiring a full list of meetings, participants, and topics of discussion, which would make it possible to trace specific influence on legislative initiatives. Separately, it has been suggested to introduce mandatory disclosure of ultimate donors for proxy organizations and groups financing political campaigns — a step intended to close loopholes in the realm of “dark money.”

The post Transparency vs. Secrecy: Can the Lobbying System Be Accountable? appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

On February 23, 2024, the Verkhovna Rada approved the government’s draft law No. 10337 “On Ethical Lobbying.” The document clearly distinguishes between advocacy activities of civil society organizations and lobbying, exempting activists from the obligation to register in the Transparency Register, which applies only to direct lobbying entities.

The law also defines the areas to which it does not apply. These include the diplomatic representation of Ukraine’s interests abroad, the activities of political parties and the media, as well as the implementation of international technical assistance programs. Advocacy, participation in public consultations with the authorities, or peaceful assemblies are likewise not considered lobbying.

At the same time, a separate act — Law No. 3620-IX — strengthened oversight and introduced penalties for violations of lobbying rules. The Code of Administrative Offenses of Ukraine has been supplemented with articles that establish fines for unlawful lobbying activities — from UAH 850 to 1,700. If a lobbying entity conceals information that disqualifies it from operating in this field, the fine increases to UAH 8,500–17,000.

Additionally, failure to submit or late submission of reports to the Transparency Register carries fines ranging from UAH 850 to 1,700. The strictest sanctions — from UAH 17,000 to 34,000 — will apply to those who breach restrictions on the subject of lobbying, work on behalf of prohibited clients, or use unlawful sources of financing.

Importantly, the new legislation also introduces an additional sanction — a ban on lobbying activities. If a court issues such a ruling, it must be sent within three days to the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP), which records the suspension of the lobbying entity’s status in the Transparency Register.

The post Ukraine Enacts the Law on Lobbying appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

Among those who took advantage of this “fast track” are Harrison Fields, Trent Morse, Bo Hines, and May Davis Mailman. Some have secured positions at well-known lobbying firms, while others have launched their own companies. All of them now advise clients seeking to build connections with the current Trump administration.

Although Donald Trump once promised to fight the so-called “revolving door” practice — where officials move directly from government service into business and lobbying — his decision to roll back a number of ethical restrictions has only made such transitions easier. This effectively allows former officials to monetize their government experience almost instantly.

Ethics experts warn that this trend poses serious risks to the transparency of political processes. The use of insider knowledge and connections for the benefit of private clients can undermine trust in public institutions and call into question the integrity of decision-making itself.

In practice, even a few months in the White House can now serve as a springboard for a lucrative lobbying career. This highlights just how closely public service and commercial interests are intertwined in American politics — while also underscoring the need for stronger ethical safeguards to prevent abuse.

The post Former Trump Staffers Move En Masse Into Lobbying appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

According to the lawmakers, the Smithsonian may have tried to influence the Senate and the media in order to block legislation concerning the relocation of the space shuttle Discovery. The initiative would move the legendary shuttle from Washington to the Johnson Space Center in Houston.

Cornyn and Weber argue that if the institution indeed spent public money to pressure lawmakers, it could amount to a violation of the Anti-Lobbying Act, which explicitly prohibits federal entities from using budgetary resources for political influence.

The Smithsonian rejects all accusations. Its representatives emphasize that communication with Congress took place strictly within existing rules, and that no “secret campaigns” were ever conducted.

The situation has already sparked considerable debate in the U.S. For many experts, it is a telling case: even cultural institutions can find themselves at the heart of political battles when major symbols and major money are at stake.

For Ukraine, this story is particularly relevant as it raises once again the fine line between “informing” and “lobbying.” Can a state institution legitimately defend its interests in parliament? And if so, where is the line beyond which influence becomes unlawful?

Source: houstonchronicle.com

The post Can Public Funds Be Used for Lobbying? Scandal in Washington appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

At the forefront of this surge is Ballard Partners, led by former Trump adviser Brian Ballard. In the second quarter of 2025 alone, the firm posted revenues exceeding $20 million — a record not just for the company, but for the industry as a whole. This spike was driven by a flood of clients eager to gain access to the new administration, ranging from big business and trade associations to foreign governments.

Another rising star in this wave of influence is Miller Strategies, the firm of Taylor Miller, a former aide to Trump’s chief of staff. Its revenues have nearly quadrupled over the past year, the result of aggressive expansion and its positioning as an “inside track” for those seeking direct influence over White House decisions.

This financial upswing is reshaping the political dynamics in Washington. While top lobbying players in previous years balanced ties across the aisle or leaned toward the Democratic Party, the current spotlight is on figures aligned with Trumpist ideology, who openly fuel polarization and conflict with the traditional bureaucracy.

As a result, K Street is once again a battleground for access to power — but this time under the rules dictated by Trump’s “revenge politics.” And while political instability threatens the foundations of American democracy, those closest to the president are counting their millions.

The post Lobbyists Break Records: Who’s Making the Most from White House Connections appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

These measures are part of a broader anti-corruption initiative introduced in response to the Qatargate scandal, which rocked Brussels in 2022. At the time, several Members of the European Parliament were accused of receiving cash and gifts in exchange for political favors from foreign governments. Since then, calls to strengthen ethical standards and transparency in the political process have grown louder across Brussels.

The new rules require mandatory public reporting of meetings with lobbyists, including names, organizations, topics of discussion, and the time of the meeting. The internal code of conduct for MEPs has also been updated to prohibit covert forms of influence, particularly through “civic associations” or unofficial advisory roles.

Critics of lobbying practices have welcomed these steps but stress that without proper enforcement and penalties for violations, the reform may remain symbolic. Several NGOs are urging the European Parliament to go further — requiring real-time disclosure of all lobbyist contacts and the establishment of an independent oversight body.

The European Parliament, for its part, has expressed readiness for further reforms. The head of parliamentary administration stated that transparency is key to restoring public trust: “Citizens have the right to know who influences their representatives and how decisions are made.”

The post European Parliament Tightens Lobbyist Controls: Badge Activation Required at Entry appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

K‑Street is more than just the name of a street in Washington; it is widely recognized as a symbol of the American lobbying industry. Many of the capital’s largest lobbying firms, law practices, and consulting companies have traditionally set up offices on or near K‑Street.

Baker Donelson, founded in 1985 by former Republican Senator Howard Baker, and the Daschle Group, launched in 2014 by former Democratic Senator Tom Daschle, have decided to combine their resources and expertise. The new firm is led by Nathan Daschle as CEO, with Tom Daschle serving as chairman of the board.

DB3 brings together about twenty professionals who will work with a wide range of clients — from media and technology companies to defense contractors and foreign governments. Among its already notable clients are Comcast, Toyota, General Dynamics, Grindr, and the government of Japan.

According to the founders, the merger will enable the firm to more effectively represent clients’ interests in the complex U.S. political environment. The combination of both teams’ experience reflects a growing trend toward consolidation in the lobbying market and underscores the value of bipartisan approaches in this field.

Analysts note that DB3 is poised to become a serious challenger to the industry’s biggest players and could reshape the balance of power on Washington’s lobbying scene.

The post A New Heavyweight on K‑Street: Lobbying Firm DB3 Is Born appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

Analysts from Harwood Levitt Consulting note that influencing politicians is no longer confined to the corridors of the European Commission or the halls of the European Parliament. The focus has shifted to public opinion. Tweets, YouTube videos, professional posts on LinkedIn, and even memes on TikTok have become part of deliberate strategies aimed at shaping public sentiment and indirectly pressuring regulators.

The rise of digital lobbying coincides with new European regulations targeting Big Tech—namely, the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act. As the EU tightens its control, companies like Meta, Amazon, Apple, and Google are seeking ways to communicate their positions not directly, but through “public support.”

At the same time, this raises concerns among experts about transparency. Social media allows for the launch of campaigns without formal registration in the EU’s Transparency Register. This opens the door to manipulation: for example, messages may be promoted by influencers who do not disclose their ties to corporations.

Despite the risks, digital lobbying has already proven effective. Instead of targeting one influential policymaker, a campaign can reach tens of thousands of citizens who then file complaints, ask tough questions to MEPs, or create public pressure online.

One thing is clear: the rules of the game have changed. And Brussels must now find an answer—how to strike a balance between the right to communication and the need for transparency when the main platform of influence is the news feed on your smartphone.

The post A New Lobbying Strategy by Tech Giants in Brussels appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

Both the American Chamber of Commerce in Ukraine (ACC) and the European Business Association (EBA) have voiced their full support, calling on lawmakers to approve these drafts before autumn. According to them, this step is crucial to effectively activate the provisions of the previously passed Law “On Lobbying”—which has not yet come into force. The business community emphasizes that the legal framework must be firmly in place before sanctions for infringements are imposed.

Draft Law No. 13339: Ensuring Information Access & Simplified Entry

Authored by MP Pavlo Pavlish, this bill grants lobbyists the legal right to submit formal requests to state authorities and obligates these entities to respond within prescribed timeframes. A standard request must be answered within 5 working days. If the issue is deemed complex and requires further consultation or clarification, this deadline can be extended to 20 working days, provided a rationale is given.

The draft law also proposes that lobbyists gain simplified access to administrative buildings—if their entry relates directly to their lobbying topics. It urges national ministries and local authorities to establish orderly procedures to facilitate this access.

Finally, government bodies failing to comply or unjustifiably denying requests would face newly outlined administrative liabilities, reinforcing institutional responsiveness and safeguarding lobbyist rights.

Draft Law No. 13340‑1: A Grace Period for Compliance

Proposed by MPs Serhii Ionushas, Maksym Pavlyuk, and others, this bill seeks to postpone administrative penalties for lobbying violations. Currently, the Law on Lobbying is scheduled to take effect on September 1, 2025, simultaneously with administrative sanctions. However, the bill argues that introducing sanctions at the same time as new legal rules is premature.

Instead, it proposes a transitional period, delaying accountability by one year—shifting enforcement to September 2026. This adjustment would allow lobbyists, public authorities, and all participants time to adapt to the new system without risking immediate penalties.

Supporters within the business community argue this careful approach helps avoid legal confusion and ensures the establishment of clear, equitable rules. At the same time, enacting both bills is seen as essential for operationalizing the lobbying reform, enhancing transparency in political processes, and aligning Ukraine with EU standards.

The post Committee Gives the Green Light: Lawmakers Prepare for Launch of Lobbying Reform appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

The TikTok issue has remained a hot topic for Republicans for several years. On one hand, the platform is extremely popular among young people and wields significant influence in the social media sphere. On the other hand, fears that the Chinese parent company ByteDance could collect and transmit user data to Chinese intelligence agencies raise concerns among national security policymakers.

The Trump administration already attempted in 2020 to force ByteDance to sell its U.S. assets or outright ban the app. However, despite prolonged political rhetoric, the term of the latest agreement allowing TikTok to operate in the country was extended, sparking disappointment among the platform’s toughest critics.

Interestingly, there is a paradoxical situation in Congress: a party that aims to be tough on cybersecurity is not yet ready to take decisive legislative steps. Politicians delay discussions or consider less radical options, which experts say only increases the risks.

It is worth noting that active lobbying by TikTok and related entities plays a key role in maintaining its presence in the U.S. market. Through their influence on lawmakers and interest groups, TikTok’s lobbyists not only confuse Republican political plans but also delay the adoption of tough decisions. This allows the platform to “catch its breath” and postpone possible restrictions, despite expressed security concerns.

The post Lobbying Around TikTok: How Political Uncertainty Is Slowing Republican Actions appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

According to AP News, Trump repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with the low level of defense spending among European NATO countries, which he believed threatened the security of the alliance and unfairly burdened the United States. He even threatened to reconsider the U.S. participation in NATO if the allies did not increase their contributions. This pressure forced European leaders to reconsider their positions and agree to increase spending.

However, experts say that such changes would not have occurred without active lobbying efforts. Powerful defense corporations and associations, especially from the U.S., actively influenced politicians and governments of NATO countries, promoting the interests of their companies. These lobbyists organized meetings with high-ranking officials, provided financial support to political campaigns, and influenced defense policy formation through think tanks and the media.

In particular, ahead of the summit in The Hague, NATO leaders, including Secretary General Mark Rutte, actively collaborated with lobbyists to develop a strategy that would meet Trump’s demands while remaining acceptable to European countries. This resulted in a compromise: 3.5% of GDP on core defense needs and 1.5% on additional security measures such as cybersecurity and infrastructure.

This case vividly demonstrates how lobbying can influence international decisions and shift the balance of power in global politics. Although decisions are officially made by state leaders, behind the scenes there are often powerful economic interests shaping the future of international relations.

The post Lobbying Mechanisms Influencing NATO Decisions: Trump’s Pressure and the Interests of the Defense Industry appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) has taken a leading role, warning that the proposed changes could put 330,000 jobs at risk. The group mobilized members for an aggressive lobbying day in Washington, framing the issue as an existential threat to the green energy sector. “This is the fight of our lives,” the group’s president said, calling on Congress to preserve the economic and environmental gains driven by the existing tax credits.

Opposition also comes from major green-energy manufacturers and clean hydrogen coalitions, which argue that the rollback threatens billions in private investments. Meanwhile, industry titans like Johnson Matthey, Energizer, and the Hydrogen Jobs Now Coalition have hired new lobbyists in recent weeks, underlining the high stakes of the legislative debate.

On the other side, business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute have cautiously supported scaling back certain provisions while seeking to preserve incentives for hydrogen and carbon capture. Conservative campaigns have also entered the fray, portraying the credits as fiscally irresponsible. The “Built for America” campaign, for example, is running ads on Fox News and Truth Social, urging a more limited and targeted approach.

As lawmakers weigh the future of the climate incentives, both sides are ramping up efforts to sway the final outcome—signaling that the political fight over clean energy is far from over.

The post “Fight of our lives”: Lobbying Intensifies Over Clean Energy Tax Credits appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

Uber is now shifting toward a model of institutionalized political financing, which allows the company not just to follow legislative processes but to strategically build a pool of political allies among candidates running for office.

In the U.S., PACs are a standard practice among major corporations. They make it possible to pool contributions from employees and management and direct them toward supporting candidates who champion favorable political agendas. Combined with traditional lobbying, this creates a dual channel of influence: analytical and informational on one hand, and financial-electoral on the other.

Uber has long fought efforts to classify its drivers as employees — a designation that would require the company to pay more taxes and provide social benefits. The company also seeks greater freedom in developing autonomous transportation technologies, which it sees as the future of mobility. To make progress in these areas, Uber needs allies in government who won’t stand in the way of innovation.

By establishing this PAC, Uber signals that it’s not merely interested in maintaining good relationships with policymakers — it is building a serious, long-term presence in Washington. And it’s doing so openly, using all the legal mechanisms provided by U.S. law. This is a clear example of transparent, structured lobbying, which has become an integral part of the American political system.

The post Uber Creates a Political Committee: What It Means for Lobbying in the U.S. appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

Initially, this body was intended to identify politically motivated investigations within law enforcement. However, it has recently found itself at the heart of a political game—surrounded by a large-scale lobbying campaign led by attorneys seeking to overturn or suspend high-profile cases.

This development can be viewed as a new form of political lobbying, in which legal tools are combined with media campaigns and pressure on justice institutions. The core argument from lawyers is simple: “Justice must not be selective”. If an investigation appears politically charged, its outcome, they argue, cannot be considered legitimate.

At the center of such efforts are cases involving former Republican Congressman Glen Casada, suspected of involvement in a corruption scheme, and New York City Mayor Eric Adams, whose case relates to allegedly illegal campaign financing. Lawyers representing these politicians actively leverage public platforms, meetings with lawmakers, and expert circles to question not only the evidence but also the motives behind the prosecutions.

Against this backdrop, the question of boundaries between lobbying and justice grows more pressing. Should the legal system be shielded from political and media influence—or should it remain open to public scrutiny and potential reversal when demanded by society?

How this question is answered will shape the nature of legal culture in the United States for years to come.

The post “Weaponization” as a New Form of Political Lobbying appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

Over the past few years, artificial intelligence has transformed from a niche professional field into a powerful factor in the global economy and security. Consequently, policymakers recognize that regulating AI must become a priority. Developer companies are investing significant funds into lobbying structures to promote the adoption of laws that support technological development while minimizing risks for business.

Numerous AI industry representatives are already working in Washington, engaging in active discussions with government officials and legislators. They not only provide information about the latest technologies but also offer their visions on rules of ethics, safety, and responsibility. Such cooperation helps the government better understand the complexity and potential of AI.

However, the growing influence of the tech lobby also raises certain concerns. Critics emphasize the risks of concentrating power in the hands of large corporations that may shape legislation to their advantage, overlooking public interests, ethical issues, and privacy protection. These challenges compel the search for a balance between innovation and security.

Additionally, lobbyist activity stimulates discussions in Congress regarding the need for transparency and accountability of technology companies. Policymakers increasingly focus on the necessity of controlling AI development to prevent potential abuses and dangerous consequences for national security.

Against the backdrop of global competition in the field of artificial intelligence, the United States strives to maintain leadership by strengthening Washington’s role as a center for key decision-making. The AI lobby has become one of the main players on the political stage, and its influence will continue to grow alongside technological progress.

The post AI Lobby: How Technology Is Changing the Rules of the Game in Washington appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

The Times’ decision to engage lobbyists is seen as a response to growing pressure from lawmakers on media operations—particularly in the context of digital transformation, artificial intelligence, and copyright issues. The paper is seeking to protect its position in a complex political landscape where transparency, Big Tech influence, and AI regulation are rapidly gaining traction.

One of the likely drivers behind this lobbying push is the intensifying debate over the use of journalistic content to train generative language models, including those developed by companies like OpenAI. In April 2024, The New York Times filed a lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI for the unauthorized use of its material. The lobbying effort is likely intended to bolster that legal battle on the political front.

Another key motivation for the return to Washington is the ongoing discussion around legislative initiatives to support independent journalism and fund local media outlets. As one of the most influential news organizations in the United States, The New York Times aims to play an active role in shaping new media policy that defends press freedom and increases the accountability of digital platforms.

The contract with Brownstein Hyatt signals a growing awareness among media organizations of their role not just in informing the public but also in shaping political decisions. In today’s environment, a free press can no longer afford to remain detached from the policymaking process that directly impacts its economic and ethical future.

This move may indicate a broader trend within the media sector—a return of major publishers to the arena of public advocacy. In the 2020s, the strategy of staying “above politics” no longer guarantees protection. In the new decade, the conversation is no longer just about information, but about its owners, the protection of sources, the algorithms that determine reach, and the right to compensation for reused content.

The post Media on the Offensive: The New York Times Embraces Lobbying appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

The main purpose of these changes is to ensure the financial implementation of the commitments set out in the Reconstruction Fund Agreement. This agreement provides for the accumulation of revenues related to the use of natural resources in a special fund of the state budget.

Specifically, the law establishes that half of the revenues from rent payments for the extraction of strategically important minerals, as well as fees for special permits for subsoil use and revenues from the sale of products under production sharing agreements, will be directed to the special fund. This applies exclusively to resources listed in Annex A of the intergovernmental Agreement and classified as “Natural Resource Assets.”

To balance the budget system, the law proposes proportionally reducing the share of such revenues allocated to the general fund of both the state and local budgets.

The law also specifies the targeted use of the newly created budget sources: funds from the special fund will be used to pay contributions to the Reconstruction Fund, which will operate on the basis of the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation and the Ukrainian Public-Private Partnership Agency, in the form of a limited partnership.

It is stipulated that only revenues generated from newly issued permits after the entry into force of the relevant international agreements—or from previously issued permits that had not entered into industrial production by that time—will form the revenue base of this new mechanism.

At the same time, the law does not exclude other sources of revenue: funds received from the Reconstruction Fund, as well as reparations from the Russian Federation or its representatives for damages caused by aggression, will be fully credited to the revenue part of the state budget’s general fund.

Special attention is given to the regulation of the return of mistakenly or excessively paid rent fees. If these funds have already been credited to the special fund, their return will be carried out using the current revenues of the same fund.

If the Reconstruction Fund Agreement is terminated, the procedure for settlements for the last tax period will be governed by the rules in force before its termination. This also applies to the return of overpayments.

The adopted law will come into effect once the Reconstruction Fund Agreement and the Limited Partnership Agreement enter into force for Ukraine. An exception is made for the government’s obligation to organize the contribution payment process—this provision takes effect on the date of the law’s official publication.

The government must, within one month after publication of the document, approve the procedure for paying the contribution, open a new budget program if necessary, and amend the state budget schedule accordingly.

The document also introduces new legal concepts such as “Natural Resource Assets” and “Income Agreed with Ukraine.” This establishes a regulatory framework for separating revenues associated with such assets for special accounting and transfer to the special fund.

However, some provisions remain unclear. The implementation of many norms of the Reconstruction Fund Agreement is closely tied to the provisions of another agreement—the Limited Partnership Agreement—whose text is currently unavailable to the public. This could complicate legal enforcement and lead to ambiguous interpretations.

The post Parliament Approves Amendments to the Budget Code to Launch Ukraine’s Reconstruction Investment Fund appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

At the heart of the lobbying push are funding allocations from the European Defence Fund (EDF) and the ASAP mechanism (Act in Support of Ammunition Production), which is intended to accelerate the delivery of ammunition, particularly in support of Ukraine. Major players like Airbus, Leonardo, Rheinmetall, and Thales are increasingly present in meetings with representatives of the European Commission and the European Parliament, pushing for streamlined funding procedures and relaxed regulatory requirements.

Despite broad support for strengthening Europe’s defense capabilities, watchdog organizations and transparency advocates are raising alarms. They point to the risk of disproportionate corporate influence on political priorities, potential distortion of budgetary decisions, and lack of openness in security policymaking.

Particularly concerning is the low level of public reporting on meetings with defense sector lobbyists. Organizations such as LobbyControl, Transparency International EU, and other watchdog groups are calling on the EU to update its transparency rules—especially for “sensitive” sectors like defense, cybersecurity, and artificial intelligence.

Ultimately, amid large-scale rearmament and a strategic reassessment of European security, the EU faces a clear challenge: how to balance defense effectiveness with democratic oversight and transparency. Lobbying that serves the public interest must be grounded not only in defense contracts but also in clear rules of the game—something that European civil society now expects from Brussels.

The post Brussels in the Crosshairs: How Europe’s Defense Industry Is Stepping Up Its Lobbying Game appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

What role does LOBBY CLUB play in the country’s business environment?

In today’s world, where solving business challenges often happens in negotiation rooms with politicians, opinion leaders, and international partners, there is a growing need for a new format of communication, advocacy, and support. This is the niche occupied by LOBBY CLUB — the first closed club of its kind in Ukraine, combining legal expertise, government relations (GR), lobbying solutions, and reputation management at the highest level.

What specific tools does the club use to promote its members’ initiatives?

Founded on the model of the most successful lobbying clubs in the United States and the United Kingdom, LOBBY CLUB brings together influential figures from politics, business, and civil society. The club operates two strategic offices — in Washington, D.C., and Kyiv. This geographic positioning grants its members direct access to key global political centers, unlocking unique opportunities to participate in shaping the international agenda.

Today, the club is more than just a networking platform — it is a professional ecosystem that helps its members promote initiatives, protect interests, and implement large-scale projects at both national and international levels.

How does the club’s approach differ from traditional stand-alone lobbying services?

The focus shifts to comprehensive influence tools that enable businesses to protect, promote, and scale on their own terms. These are not isolated services — they are components of a unified strategy. This is exactly how the LOBBY CLUB approach works — the first lobbying club in Ukraine with international infrastructure.

What influence mechanisms are used to lobby client interests in the U.S. and the EU?

Global markets today are not only about trade — they also encompass politics, reputation, diplomacy, and institutional connections. That’s why companies, industry associations, and individual initiatives require informal influence over decision-making in the capitals that set the global rules.

LOBBY CLUB provides lobbying services in the United States and European Union countries, ensuring direct access to key political decisions, investors, diplomats, and business leaders. We develop personalized GR strategies, represent client interests in international institutions, organize trade missions, ensure public presence in prestigious media, and support reputation-building projects that strengthen positions in global markets.

How does the club ensure influence over regulatory processes in Ukraine?

Ukraine is undergoing deep transformations, where businesses and civic initiatives can and should take part in shaping public policy. Influence over regulatory processes, participation in lawmaking, and involvement in public discourse are tools that require a professional approach.

The club supports the full cycle of national lobbying — from legislative analysis and drafting of regulatory documents to participation in parliamentary hearings, media campaigns, and engagement with government bodies at all levels. We help broadcast the client’s position to the public, shape expert narratives, and create platforms for effective advocacy.

What professional standards does the club’s legal team follow when working on cross-jurisdictional cases?

In a dynamic legal environment and amid international integration, businesses increasingly require legal stability. Legal defense, clean transactions, and properly structured relations have become key not only to safety but also to successful scaling.

LOBBY CLUB provides legal representation in courts in Ukraine, the EU, and the United States, offering defense in complex criminal and civil cases. We offer legal consulting, audits, transaction support, regulatory expertise, and dispute resolution in corporate, tax, or contractual contexts.

Modern businesses constantly face regulatory threats, inspections, legal claims, and information pressure. In such conditions, it is not enough to respond — it is essential to build a systemic defense.

The club offers services such as comprehensive legal risk assessments, development of crisis response plans, asset protection, and the creation of internal security policies. We work proactively — neutralizing threats before they begin to harm the business.

The club is building a new model of interaction between business, politics, law, and the international arena. It is a tool for those who operate at high stakes, require strategic support, and seek systemic influence across multiple jurisdictions.

LOBBY CLUB continues to expand its operations while maintaining a focus on quality, confidentiality, and results.

Source

The post LOBBY CLUB is the first private club of lobbyists and strategic decision-making of international level in Ukraine appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

The report places particular emphasis on the role of corporate lobbying in shaping public health policy. Kennedy criticizes the “capture” of regulatory agencies such as the FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) by the very industries they are meant to oversee. He goes as far as to describe the FDA as a “puppet” of the pharmaceutical industry and warns against the influence of the so-called “deep state” on the agency.

The report also notes that 70% of the average child’s diet consists of ultra-processed foods, contributing to a rise in chronic illnesses. Kennedy underscores that despite $4.5 trillion in annual healthcare spending, the United States ranks among the worst in health outcomes compared to other developed nations.

In response to the report, lobbying groups representing the food and pharmaceutical industries have intensified their efforts. The American Farm Bureau and the Consumer Brands Association have already met with lawmakers in preparation for a potential clash with the MAHA initiative.

Kennedy has pledged to introduce specific reforms within his first 100 days. However, given the entrenched influence of corporate lobbying in Washington, implementing these reforms may face substantial resistance. For professional lobbyists, this signals a new phase of engagement with government — one where the balance between corporate interests and public health is growing increasingly delicate.

The post Robert F. Kennedy Jr. vs. Lobbyists: A New Report on Children’s Health appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

The initiative, led by Republican Senator Bill Hagerty and Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand, had the potential to become a historic milestone in crypto market regulation. However, as is often the case in Washington, complex lobbying efforts unfolded behind the scenes. A revised version of the bill, introduced after consultations with industry stakeholders, sparked outrage among Democrats, who saw it as skewed in favor of the crypto industry.

Nine Democratic senators who had previously backed the bill withdrew their support. According to them, the new version softened its stance on market participants and lacked sufficient safeguards against money laundering and financial manipulation. Senator Ruben Gallego bluntly stated that the bill was “rewritten under pressure from lobbyists,” deviating from earlier agreements.

Even more controversy arose around potential conflicts of interest involving crypto market players with political connections. The media spotlighted reports about a fund linked to former President Donald Trump, which is allegedly preparing a $2 billion deal involving stablecoins. Democrats cited this as a warning sign that regulation could be weaponized to serve private interests rather than protect the public good.

Despite the backlash, Senator Gillibrand continues to defend the bill, emphasizing that the absence of regulation poses even greater risks — both to consumers and the market at large. She believes that even a compromised set of rules is better than no legislative oversight at all.

This episode illustrates how the crypto lobby — a relatively new but already powerful force in Washington — can significantly influence the legislative process. The conflict surrounding the bill revealed that an industry seeking legitimacy might find itself entangled in high-stakes politics, where compromises are sometimes dictated not by reason, but by money.

For crypto market participants, this is not merely the failure of a single initiative, but a stark reminder: without transparent channels of influence and participation in the legislative process, the rules of the game will continue to be written by those with the strongest lobbyists.

The post Cryptocurrency Lobby in the Senate: What Happened to the New Bill appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.

Investment Opportunity Rights

Article VII obliges Ukrainian state authorities to ensure that all subsoil users or concessionaires intending to raise capital must provide full investment information to the Partnership. This applies to both extractive industries and large infrastructure assets. In other words, the United States insists on the creation of a transparent and priority channel for its investment Partnership to participate in strategic Ukrainian projects.

The Agreement grants the Partnership (the U.S.-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund structured as a limited partnership) the advantage of a right of first review of investment projects. This establishes an institutionally enshrined “first look” model, allowing the American Partnership exclusive access to evaluate the investment appeal of projects before they are made public or offered to other parties.

Additionally, recipients of licenses for subsoil use and entities engaged in mineral extraction are required to provide relevant information to the Partnership and authorized state bodies if they seek to attract capital. When approving public-private partnership (PPP) agreements, concessions, or identifying significant assets, such entities must also agree on the terms of these agreements with state institutions, ensuring additional control to protect both state and strategic Partnership interests.

These provisions must operate within the framework of Ukraine’s current legislation and its obligations to the European Union. If contradictions arise between this Agreement and Ukraine’s EU integration requirements, good-faith consultations are envisioned to adapt the relevant conditions.

This approach is largely aimed at preventing unfair competition and limiting participation in critical projects by entities from countries that are not allies of Ukraine in the ongoing war. Ensuring transparency in the selection of investors and prioritizing the strategic U.S. Partnership are intended to minimize the risks of pro-Russian capital infiltrating sensitive sectors—especially energy, infrastructure, and resource extraction.

Market Rights to Purchase Extracted Products

Article VIII continues the logic of protecting U.S. economic interests by granting the Partnership or its representatives the right to negotiate the purchase of products extracted in Ukraine—specifically on “market commercial terms.” This is a critical detail that ensures equal access to resources while simultaneously granting the Partnership priority negotiation rights.

License holders for subsoil use must refrain from offering significantly more favorable financial or economic terms to third parties than those available to the Partnership. This clause acts as a “safeguard” against speculative or bypass schemes.

The Ukrainian side is obligated to incorporate these conditions into all licenses and permits governing access to natural resources. In other words, the Agreement requires systemic integration of these terms into national policy on subsoil use and infrastructure development.

Similar to Article VII, Article VIII provides for a mechanism to review the terms should future EU integration obligations prevent the implementation of current provisions.

These clauses establish a new model of economic partnership, combining resource supply security with the principles of a market economy.

It is also worth noting that implementing these market rights may impact the structure of Ukraine’s domestic market. On one hand, it creates an incentive for greater competition among extractive companies aiming to secure favorable deals with the Partnership. On the other hand, it demands that the government establish effective monitoring and enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with non-discrimination standards and prevent abuses in resource allocation.

Conclusions

Overall, Articles VII and VIII allow the United States to institutionalize its involvement in Ukraine’s reconstruction—not just through financial support, but by directly influencing where and how funds are invested, who gains access to resources, and under what conditions.

Critics of the Agreement may see these provisions as a threat to market competition. The Partnership effectively receives a semi-exclusive status in strategic sectors. This could reduce Ukraine’s market attractiveness for other potential investors lacking similar guarantees.

At the same time, such measures may be justified under current conditions, as Ukraine seeks to avoid the entry of toxic investors from countries that do not support it during wartime. Articles VII and VIII act as an investment “filter,” guaranteeing oversight from allied partners.

The Agreement also sets new standards for investment-related governance: transparency, prior disclosure, good-faith negotiations, and institutional accountability. This could become a turning point in Ukraine’s business environment overall, reducing corruption risks and increasing trust from international partners.

Nevertheless, a rare “window of opportunity” is currently open for those interested in entering the Ukrainian market with high-quality investment projects. Participation in the future investment fund or collaboration with Ukrainian partners could serve as a point of entry into the major transformation of infrastructure, energy, or agriculture. While mechanisms are still being shaped, flexibility, initiative, and a quality-driven approach may offer real advantages—especially for businesses aiming to be at the forefront of post-war recovery.

LOBBY CLUB is ready to be your reliable partner in this process—offering professional support at every stage of cooperation and helping you achieve strategic goals.

The post Strategic Partnership between the United States and Ukraine: New Opportunities for Business and Subsoil Users appeared first on LOBBY CLUB.