This is my take. Let's compare notes.

In representatives systems of mass politics, politicians must develop a political machine to achieve elected office and political ends. If member of a political faction, a politician will have the backing of the party machine during elections and in partisan politics. But when in office and particularly in inter-party politics, he must rely on his own wherewithal, in other words his personal political machine.

The lobbyists with whom everybody nowadays is concerned it seems grease the wheels of politics with their money, yes, and by mediation, connecting the politicking of representatives to the enactment of policy. Indeed, little would happen in Congress without lobbyists because the inter and intra party politics would force either a perpetual 'political deadlock' or internecine battle within the political sphere.

Now if you want Congress to be prolific with legislating then criticizing lobbyists is the last thing you should wish to do. But even if you think Congress a busybody obstructing and weighing down civil life, you would not concur with today's criticism of lobbyists. The criticism is misplaced. The political machines and the representative structures are the principal problem. Lobbyists, who fill the chasm growing between politicking and policy and thus keep the political system operating in a manner, are a symptom.

If you want to blow up the system, by all means attack lobbying. Remove lobbyists and the rickety Jenga tower crashes down.