It’s a crime for a foreign individual or corporation — let alone a foreign government — to make contributions to American political campaigns. But it’s perfectly legal for a foreign government to hire ex-Congressfolk as lobbyists, and for the lobbyists then to contribute some to their former colleagues’ campaigns. Is it “the same” money? Meaningless question: money is fungible.
Not passing the Armenian genocide resolution isn’t a terrible outcome: yes, the resolution expresses a truth that the Turkish government continues to deny, and the last time I checked defending truth against falsehood was a good thing to do, but this is hardly the optimal moment to further annoy the Turkish government and military. But allowing lobbyists to act as conduits for the passage of foreign money — and especially foreign sovereign money — into American campaigns seems like a terrible idea.
And yes, it’s fixable, even accepting the insane notion that money is somehow “speech.” Under the existing precedents, there’s no way to forbid the lobbyists from offering
bribes campaign contributions to candidates or PACs. But since each House has the Constitutional authority to make its own rules, nothing would bar the House or the Senate from making it against the rules for any sitting member to accept contributions from any registered lobbyist for a foreign government or other foreign entity, from any employee or partner of a firm any of whose members is so registered, or from any PAC that accepts contributions from such people.