UNM lobbying deal raises suspicions of funding US Congressman’s support for MEGOBARI Act, Georgian media

The United National Movement (UNM), Georgia’s main opposition party, has hired US lobbying firm Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP under a $360,000 contract, Georgia’s Imedi TV reported on Tuesday, alleging the deal could be linked to efforts to influence US lawmakers, particularly Congressman Joe Wilson, in support of the party’s political agenda.

According to documents filed under the US Department of Justice’s Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), the six-month agreement was signed on July 11 by Petre Tsiskarishvili on behalf of the UNM. The documents list the party under the name Unity – National Movement and outline services related to representing the party’s interests before US government bodies, including advocacy for free and fair elections in Georgia.

Imedi TV, a government-leaning broadcaster, reported that the headquarters of Nelson Mullins was located in Columbia, South Carolina - also the home state of Congressman Joe Wilson, a sponsor of the MEGOBARI Act, a bill calling for expanded US engagement in Georgia. The outlet noted that the lobbying firm and its employees had made repeated financial contributions to Wilson over the years, totaling $87,500 since 2004, including $10,000 for his 2024 re-election campaign.

The donations, coupled with the new contract with UNM, have fueled speculation in the Georgian media that the opposition party’s lobbying payments may be indirectly supporting Wilson’s campaign. The reports suggested a possible quid pro quo, alleging that in return for the lobbying funds, Wilson continued to promote a “disinformation campaign” against the Georgian government and advocate for the passage of the MEGOBARI Act - legislation strongly opposed by the ruling Georgian Dream party.

Nelson Mullins has also contributed to other US politicians, including Senator Lindsey Graham, who received $35,000 in support for his 2024 campaign, according to open-source data. The firm’s donations were made both in its name and through contributions by individual employees, which, the media claimed, further complicated transparency over the source and intent of the funding.