Sure, you can argue it’s hyperbole. But if you’re trying to make the point that someone else is sloppy with the facts, it may undermine that for you to make a literally false statement, even if it’s hyperbole. Hyperbole can be hard to detect.
>If someone clearly has an agenda then calling them a lobbyist is just fine
Why not just call them as "having an agenda"? Why do you feel the need to stretch the truth?
words have meanings and should be used accordingly
yes and in this context lobbyist means someone with a clear agenda, not a legal designation. You're the one making up meanings to suit yourself