BECOMING A PERMANENT resident of the United States is often a difficult and time-consuming process—that is, unless you’ve got the cash.  The EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program was established by Congress in 1990 to encourage foreign investment in the United States.  Under the program, investors are offered permanent residency if they spend $500,000 to $1 million on projects or business in the United States and, in the process, create at least ten jobs.

The problem? As The Hill reports, U.S. companies – most notably GreenTech, the electric car company started by Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe – are using the program to attract foreign capital.  GreenTech allegedly “guarantee[d] returns” for EB-5 investors, which has attracted unwanted media (and regulatory) attention. Even worse, in July, The Monitor, a regional Texas newspaper, reported that the FBI raided a McAllen, Texas company that exploited the EB-5 program to create a Ponzi scheme in which the investment money was used to buy luxury goods and pay off legal settlements for wealthy Mexicans who sought to fast-track their residency in the United States.  Disturbing, yes, but is this an isolated case or is the EB-5 program ripe for exploitation?

Lobbyists argue the former.  The Hill notes that McAuliffe’s company would likely not have come under such extensive scrutiny if McAuliffe weren’t embroiled in a tense gubernatorial race. Further, lobbyists argue that the program maintains strict regulatory standards, and say that they welcome even tougher oversight. Further, the EB-5 trade group Association to Invest in USA claims that the program has so far attracted $2.2 billion in GDP to the U.S. economy and supported 28,000 jobs between 2010 and 2011.

There’s a lot of money at stake for lobbyists and investors alike, and The Hill reports that both have begun a push to renew the program before it expires in 2015. If the program isn’t renewed by then, lobbyists fear that Congressional gridlock will mean the end of the program.  While the government is shutdown, lobbyists have only to hope that the regulatory questions EB-5 has raised will subside. In the meantime, they will continue to trumpet the program’s successes with an eye toward 2015.

THOSE CURIOUS ABOUT the shutdown have an abundance of stories on which to feast. Fear mongers and masochists alike can delight in the prospects of uninspected meat or undisclosed campaign donations. Everyone else can find ample relief in the triumphant storming of a barricaded WWII memorial by indignant vets.

But what can one learn of lobbyists?  How’s the “influence industry” faring?

The beltway media appears not to be the surest source. One paper reports that as a result of the shutdown “…lobbyists are preparing for the fact they may have lots of time on their hands.”  The article quotes lobbyist David Urban, who “said the latest fight over spending are [sic.] throwing a wrench in K Street’s bread and butter work…” The same paper – same reporter even – writes two days later that “…even a shutdown can’t put a stop to K Street lobbying.”

Attempts at a clear conception of what’s really going on are further rent by such opposing headlines as “Government Shutdown Halts Lobbyist Activity” and “No shutdown for K Street as advocates blitz Capitol.”

Yet overall, the reporting itself isn’t to blame; many of these articles paint a subtle picture of how K St. is dealing with the shutdown.  It’s the headlines and sweeping generalizations that are the source of confusion, both of which tend to corrupt nuanced analysis.  Alas, that’s journalism.

So how, once and for all, is K St. coping with the shutdown?  It depends who you ask on K St.  Are lobbyists being kept busy?  Some, yes; some, not so much.  The shutdown provides yet another moment in which one must reflect on whether the use of catch-all terms like “K St.” (meaning more than just the street) sufficiently capture reality.  In this case, they clearly don’t.