US experience in lobbying regulation and its relevance for Ukraine

06/ 05/ 2026

On April 23, the Logistics Committee of the European Business Association, with the participation of the Lobbying and Transparent Policies Committee, held an expert discussion “Lobbying in the US: Lessons from the American System for Ukraine.” The discussion focused on the practical aspects of how the lobbying system operates in the United States, how lobbying is regulated, what transparency requirements apply, and which elements of the US experience could be useful for Ukraine as its own lobbying framework continues to develop. The guest speaker of the meeting was Adrian Arnakis, Senior Vice President - Government Affairs at the Association of American Railroads and Devon Lidz, Congressional Affairs & PAC Manager. A key point of the discussion was that lobbying in the US is treated as a legitimate activity. It is viewed as a form of communication through which businesses, industry associations, experts, citizens, and other stakeholders provide public officials with professional expertise and information about the potential consequences of policy decisions. The US approach is rooted in the constitutional protection of speech: “The presumption is that speech is free and that you can do it.” At the same time, this does not mean lobbying is unlimited or unregulated, but rather that regulation must be balanced and aimed at transparency. In this context, Adrian addressed one of the most common misconceptions about lobbying: “In reality, lobbying really is the transferring of expertise and knowledge from one person to another.” Lobbying helps policymakers receive information they may otherwise not have, especially when dealing with complex technical or sector-specific issues. Participants also discussed the historical development of lobbying regulation in the United States. In particular, the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, which was designed to clarify who qualifies as a lobbyist, which activities are subject to regulation, and what information must be disclosed and the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which further strengthened transparency and public trust in the policymaking process. The practical part of the discussion focused on the criteria that trigger lobbying disclosure requirements in the US. These include the amount spent on lobbying activity during a quarter, two or more lobbying contacts, and the share of an employee’s working time dedicated to lobbying. Participants also discussed how organizations track these indicators in practice. At the same time, it was noted that not every expert interaction with public officials automatically qualifies as lobbying. For example, technical experts may participate in meetings to provide factual or industry-specific information without being considered lobbyists, if they do not advocate for a specific policy decision. This distinction is also important for Ukraine, as effective policymaking requires access to practical expertise from businesses and sectoral specialists. Adrian Arnakis and Devon Lidz explained that AAR follows a cautious approach to disclosure: «We would rather report something, and it not have to be reported than the reverse.» This approach, according to the speakers, helps organizations reduce compliance risks and demonstrate openness in their interaction with public authorities. A separate part of the discussion was dedicated to professional standards for lobbyists. In the US, there are no mandatory government requirements regarding specific education, certification, or exams for lobbyists. Instead, practical expertise, knowledge of a particular sector, understanding of policymaking processes, internal organizational policies, and voluntary professional standards play an important role. Adrian Arnakis emphasized that formal requirements should not narrow the pool of people who can provide valuable expertise: «It might be more important, instead of graduating college, that you have expertise in the actual subject that you are doing.» Devon Lidz supported this point, noting that many people without formal technical degrees may still have deep practical knowledge of their industry: «Some of those people know much better than we do what it is like to be on a line day-to-day, so that is valuable experience and valuable knowledge as well.» Reporting requirements were another important topic. In the US, lobbyists and organizations submit regular reports on the issues and legislative proposals they lobby on, as well as on lobbying expenditures. There are two main types of reports: biannual reports on political contributions and quarterly reports on lobbying activities. The US system does not require organizations to break down expenses by every individual issue or meeting. The US reporting system is generally broader than the Ukrainian approach: instead of listing every individual meeting with a specific official, organizations may report that they lobbied the US House of Representatives, the US Senate, or relevant executive branch bodies. The discussion also covered liability for incorrect reporting or failure to disclose information. In the case of lobbying disclosure violations, the system often allows corrections if mistakes are identified. However, intentional violations, foreign agent registration issues, or misuse of political funds can lead to much more serious consequences. For Ukraine, this experience is particularly relevant, as the national lobbying regulation system is still taking shape. Participants agreed that it is important not to copy foreign models mechanically, but to adapt best practices to the Ukrainian context and find a balance between transparency, efficiency, and realistic compliance requirements for business. The European Business Association will continue its professional dialogue on the development of transparent and effective mechanisms of interaction between business and public authorities, as well as the study of international experience that may be useful for improving Ukraine’s lobbying and advocacy framework.

The discussion focused on the practical aspects of how the lobbying system operates in the United States, how lobbying is regulated, what transparency requirements apply, and which elements of the US experience could be useful for Ukraine as its own lobbying framework continues to develop.

The guest speaker of the meeting was Adrian Arnakis, Senior Vice President – Government Affairs at the Association of American Railroads and Devon Lidz, Congressional Affairs & PAC Manager.

A key point of the discussion was that lobbying in the US is treated as a legitimate activity. It is viewed as a form of communication through which businesses, industry associations, experts, citizens, and other stakeholders provide public officials with professional expertise and information about the potential consequences of policy decisions.

The US approach is rooted in the constitutional protection of speech: “The presumption is that speech is free and that you can do it.” At the same time, this does not mean lobbying is unlimited or unregulated, but rather that regulation must be balanced and aimed at transparency.

In this context, Adrian addressed one of the most common misconceptions about lobbying:

“In reality, lobbying really is the transferring of expertise and knowledge from one person to another.”

Lobbying helps policymakers receive information they may otherwise not have, especially when dealing with complex technical or sector-specific issues.

Participants also discussed the historical development of lobbying regulation in the United States. In particular, the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, which was designed to clarify who qualifies as a lobbyist, which activities are subject to regulation, and what information must be disclosed and the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which further strengthened transparency and public trust in the policymaking process.

The practical part of the discussion focused on the criteria that trigger lobbying disclosure requirements in the US. These include the amount spent on lobbying activity during a quarter, two or more lobbying contacts, and the share of an employee’s working time dedicated to lobbying. Participants also discussed how organizations track these indicators in practice.

At the same time, it was noted that not every expert interaction with public officials automatically qualifies as lobbying. For example, technical experts may participate in meetings to provide factual or industry-specific information without being considered lobbyists, if they do not advocate for a specific policy decision. This distinction is also important for Ukraine, as effective policymaking requires access to practical expertise from businesses and sectoral specialists.

Adrian Arnakis and Devon Lidz explained that AAR follows a cautious approach to disclosure:

«We would rather report something, and it not have to be reported than the reverse.»

This approach, according to the speakers, helps organizations reduce compliance risks and demonstrate openness in their interaction with public authorities.

A separate part of the discussion was dedicated to professional standards for lobbyists. In the US, there are no mandatory government requirements regarding specific education, certification, or exams for lobbyists. Instead, practical expertise, knowledge of a particular sector, understanding of policymaking processes, internal organizational policies, and voluntary professional standards play an important role.

Adrian Arnakis emphasized that formal requirements should not narrow the pool of people who can provide valuable expertise:

«It might be more important, instead of graduating college, that you have expertise in the actual subject that you are doing.»

Devon Lidz supported this point, noting that many people without formal technical degrees may still have deep practical knowledge of their industry:

«Some of those people know much better than we do what it is like to be on a line day-to-day, so that is valuable experience and valuable knowledge as well.»

Reporting requirements were another important topic. In the US, lobbyists and organizations submit regular reports on the issues and legislative proposals they lobby on, as well as on lobbying expenditures. There are two main types of reports: biannual reports on political contributions and quarterly reports on lobbying activities. The US system does not require organizations to break down expenses by every individual issue or meeting. The US reporting system is generally broader than the Ukrainian approach: instead of listing every individual meeting with a specific official, organizations may report that they lobbied the US House of Representatives, the US Senate, or relevant executive branch bodies.

The discussion also covered liability for incorrect reporting or failure to disclose information. In the case of lobbying disclosure violations, the system often allows corrections if mistakes are identified. However, intentional violations, foreign agent registration issues, or misuse of political funds can lead to much more serious consequences.

For Ukraine, this experience is particularly relevant, as the national lobbying regulation system is still taking shape. Participants agreed that it is important not to copy foreign models mechanically, but to adapt best practices to the Ukrainian context and find a balance between transparency, efficiency, and realistic compliance requirements for business.

The European Business Association will continue its professional dialogue on the development of transparent and effective mechanisms of interaction between business and public authorities, as well as the study of international experience that may be useful for improving Ukraine’s lobbying and advocacy framework.