It's more complicated than that. They adjust their position to whatever will lead to the most votes, but that often will include things that will not appeal to

It's more complicated than that. They adjust their position to whatever will lead to the most votes, but that often will include things that will not appeal to voters, but will appeal to donors that then will then provide resources to appeal to voters in another issue. In areas that do not sway many votes, we might as well have an oligarchy: A lot of gain to a few often defeats a small loss to the many, even if the total loss actually exceeds the total gain. Then, whether a group can lobby for regulation depends on a variety of predictable factors. It's the whole reason right to work legislation destroys unions. This is not new theory. The Logic of Collective Action by Olson covered this 50 years ago.