The only justification I've ever heard for why lobbyism should be legal is "lobbyists act as 'lawyers' to help the people be heard in the legislative sphere".

If that were true, "if you cannot afford a lobbyist, one will be provided to you" would be a thing (and no, I'm not talking about crowd-funded 'patches' like the public funded NPOs/watchdogs protecting our rights).

As far as I'm concerned it's functionally equivalent to straight-up bribery. Accomplishes the same ends for the same people, just sidesteps the definition.

It's hard to distinguish "lobbyists" from "a group of concerned citizen activists advocating for a cause they care about". Any rules imposed on the former would also affect the latter.

More robust restrictions on the flow of money from lobbyists to campaigns and superPACs could be an effective deterrent on the worst influences of lobbyists, though.

Banking and payment systems are arcane too. Nobody uses checks any more except the US, and online banking is soooo complicated and confusing completed to other Western countries.

Yup. Not only that, but checks are still the most secure, most convenient, easiest way to transfer money in the US despite things like ACH. Banks are still not required to implement proper online security by law and are generally the most insecure sites one visits on the web. Not all our problems are due to lobbying/legal corruption, but most are and therefore most have simple solutions. Sad.