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.
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.