If the CEO were paid an extra $10M salary so they could turn around and personally spend it on a lobbying firm, that would at least reduce the efficiency of said lobbying by 37%.
The biggest issue is the complete lack of reporting, and anything that pushes the money flows more into the open (your hypothetical CEO is then personally responsible) is a step forward. Take a look at the stark difference between campaign finance reporting for individual candidates, and everything else.
Your last bit is a loaded question. If an entity's business is lobbying, then obviously they can engage in lobbying. But they could only be funded by individuals, not companies whose business is other-than-lobbying.
My point is that NGOs, non-profits, unions, and other voluntary groups aren’t primarily about lobbying but may want to increase their members’ voice by lobbying, e.g. environmental groups.
I did get your point. The obvious solution is to split into two entities, one that does the lobbying and can only accept personal dollars and one that accepts corporate donations and does no lobbying. This is the third non-issue you've brought up as if it were some kind of blocker. Prohibiting corporations from donating to individual campaigns is something that is already done. It just needs to be expanded to all lobbying.
My point is that lobbying isn’t some magical activity, it’s just petitioning the government. Anyone being governed should probably be able to voice comply about how they’re being governed. Corporations aren’t some magical thing,and most aren’t the giant entities people imagine.
Do I think lobbyists should write legislation? No. Do I think congress should be able to break encryption without ever tech company sending someone to educate them on their stupidity? Also no.
I think there are some controls we could put on lobbying but it’s useful.
If Congress still allowed floor votes and amendments to bills, lobbying would be far less clandestine and effective. Right now lobbyists just have to target congressional leadership and key committees. Congress in an effort to clamp down on the legislative process and protect its members from controversial ores has made the process more vulnerable.
You're the one referencing "magic". The main thing I'm getting from your response is the standard retort whenever anybody complains about the problems arising from corporate scale - "but anyone can start a corporation". This is technically true, but completely dodges that issue of scale. If there were non-incorporated groups of thousands of people coming together and doing similar things we would need different criteria, but there are not.
As for the encryption topic, then perhaps the scope of anti-lobbying should include government agencies as well. I certainly don't trust big tech to defend my personal digital rights, and the fact that we're looking to them to be our saviors is itself a major problem. They seem to be aligned with us at the moment, but ultimately mandated communications escrow would be another competitive moat for them. I expect that to shift if there is a serious move (back) to p2p apps.
I agree on the congressional process, but not to the exclusion of other approaches.
The biggest issue is the complete lack of reporting, and anything that pushes the money flows more into the open (your hypothetical CEO is then personally responsible) is a step forward. Take a look at the stark difference between campaign finance reporting for individual candidates, and everything else.
Your last bit is a loaded question. If an entity's business is lobbying, then obviously they can engage in lobbying. But they could only be funded by individuals, not companies whose business is other-than-lobbying.