Freedom of expression and human rights organizations warned that a bill introduced by President Javier Milei to regulate lobbying activities could lead to “permanent state surveillance” and undermine democratic participation.

In a joint statement, the groups questioned the strict oversight mechanisms and legal penalties contemplated by the proposal, arguing that while its stated objectives “may be legitimate,” they could also “lead to an illegitimate limitation of rights.”

The statement was signed by organizations that regularly engage with public officials and policymakers, including the Argentine Journalism Forum (FOPEA, by its Spanish acronym), think tank Fundar, human rights groups Amnesty International Argentina and the Center for Legal and Social Studies (CELS), HIV and sexual health organization Fundación Huésped, as well as other entities focused on climate action, democratic participation and gender equality.

The bill, titled the “Law for Transparency and Disclosure of Interest Representation,” was submitted by ruling party La Libertad Avanza (LLA) to Congress on May 22. 

According to its critics, it amounts to more than a lobbying regulation and instead creates a framework for what they described as “surveilled participation.”

“The bill goes far beyond a traditional lobbying regulation by failing to distinguish between citizen participation and commercial interests,” the statement said. “Instead, it subjects both to the same mechanisms of control, registration, and sanctions.”

‘Interest representation’

The organizations argued that the bill’s definition of “interest representation” is “extraordinarily broad,” encompassing activities that would be considered routine in any democracy, such as meeting with lawmakers, advocating for legislative reforms, or participating in public debates.

Such activities would be “subject to permanent state surveillance, regardless of who carries them out,” the groups said.

According to the bill, interest representation includes “any activity involving promotion, representation, mediation, consultation, preparation or advocacy, carried out by individuals or legal entities, either on their own behalf or on behalf of third parties, whether for-profit or nonprofit, paid or unpaid, in any form, with the aim of influencing the adoption, modification, postponement, rejection, implementation or evaluation of a public decision or decision-making process.”

The definition also covers “any communication with a regulated entity intended to present interests, positions, arguments, proposals, information or requests aimed at influencing a public decision.”

According to the bill, the objective is to increase transparency in interactions between private actors and public officials by establishing registration, disclosure and traceability mechanisms for activities that may influence government decision-making.

“Regardless of the proposal’s intentions, the bill directly affects the constitutional right to petition public authorities,” the organizations said, arguing that it “irrationally restricts” that right by imposing burdens on its exercise.

Registry and prison sentences

Among the proposed changes is the creation of a public registry that individuals, organizations and other entities would have to join in order to meet or communicate with lawmakers and public officials on matters covered by the legislation.

The bill also creates four new criminal offenses related to lobbying violations. Three carry prison sentences of up to two years, while the fourth is punishable through administrative sanctions and fines.

The offenses that could result in jail time include “clandestine lobbying,” “false statements or aggravated concealment,” and “clandestine representation of foreign interests.” 

The organizations noted that the offenses apply only to lobbyists and not to lawmakers or public officials, creating what they described as an “asymmetry” between the parties involved.

“The risk of administrative or criminal sanctions contemplated in the bill could create significant bureaucratic barriers, particularly for smaller organizations,” the statement said. 

By equating civic participation with commercial lobbying and subjecting both to the same controls and penalties, “the bill casts suspicion on a practice that is, in itself, part of democratic life.”

The groups also warned that organizations that routinely scrutinize those in power could become subject to greater levels of oversight and monitoring by the very authorities they seek to hold accountable.

“One of the most sensitive aspects of the bill is its potential impact on freedom of expression, journalism, and the democratic circulation of information on matters of public interest,” the organizations said.

“The bill directly affects the ability of organizations that wish to participate in public debate to access information, as well as the functioning of independent journalism.”