In terms of developing countries that are the subject of this story (with no real campaign finance frameworks and/or enforcement, and maybe not even open electi

In terms of developing countries that are the subject of this story (with no real campaign finance frameworks and/or enforcement, and maybe not even open elections), I think you're right to say there's probably no real difference. However, in the US and other countries with (relatively) developed election and legislation processes, I think there's some key differences: Lobbying usually requires a level of policy rationalization (however disingenuous) that bribery does not. Lobbyist can say behind closed doors that they want X for selfish reasons, but in order for it to be politically tenable the legislator usually will require at least some publicly defensible rationalization for the action. Similarly, lobbying usually involves the legislative process and getting a political actor to make certain political/legislative decisions that would benefit the lobbyist's clients. Bribe's usually involves getting a person in power to make decisions that often don't involve the political process or legislations, like the awarding of a contract by an agency under their control, or withholding an investigation. Seen this way, lobbying can be and has been characterized as interest groups subsidizing the legislative process by providing competing research and proposals to an understaffed legislature. Whether that's a good or bad of making law is another discussion, but I think it's fair to say that bribery could not be considered that way, and therefore serves no acceptable public purpose other than the enrichment of the briber and bribee.