> The practice of lobbying provides a forum [...] I agree with this definition (though it does omit the glaring problems with "providing a forum" which require

> The practice of lobbying provides a forum [...] I agree with this definition (though it does omit the glaring problems with "providing a forum" which requires you to pay into). The problem is that this is not what you originally said: > the intention of lobbying is to help politicians [...] make informed decisions by getting industry experts to advise them. Lobbying is about getting different interest groups to put forward their point of view (that's what the definition you quoted effectively says), regardless of their level of expertise or credibility when it comes to the topic under discussion. This is completely antithetical to providing expertise to someone in power (which is what you were implying is the intention of lobbying). You could argue that requiring expertise or credibility would result in a technocracy, and that allowing ordinary people (who don't necessarily have education or expertise in a topic) to lobby is more equal. And in theory it would be more equal. But lobbying costs time and money, which are things that ordinary people don't have in abundance. So the system is already favouring groups of people that have bigger bags of money -- so surely favouring people that have bigger stacks of research would be a better solution overall.