I recognize that Lawrence Lessig is beating this particular drum lately, and he's probably way smarter than me. However, I can't escape the idea that money is the mother's milk of politics. It's like water in that it always finds a way through an obstacle, no matter how much you put in its way. If you eliminate overt lobbying, organizations will find a way to route around whatever laws are in place to lobby covertly, in ways that are likely much harder for the average person to detect.

Furthermore, I'd point out that, depending on the form of a ban on lobbying, the recent SOPA protest might not have been able to happen. Google might have been prevented from blacking out their page as would Wikipedia, lest they run afoul of anti-lobbying laws. That's something worth thinking about.

It's also not just the business sector that has lobbyists. There are tons of other groups. The Sierra Club and NRA are two biggies that come to mind. As an individual, it's much more efficient for me to throw in with one of those groups to ensure my interests are protected than it is to do it myself. Both are exceptionally effective at getting what they want because they spend all day keeping an eye on elected (and unelected) government officials and their continued existence hinges on their success.

I'm not arguing that we have to like this current situation, but it's hard for me to think of a better scenario that doesn't infringe on the rights of people to assemble as a group and voice their opininon via financial support, advertising, etc... Just because some of the time we don't personally like the result of lots of lobbyists, doesn't mean this is the root of all evil. In the end, all the money in the world isn't going to compel ordinary citizens to vote for someone who doesn't have their interests in mind. Exhibit A would be John Corzine who had an incredible fortune at his disposal in his reelection bid as governor of NJ and still lost to Chris Christie in 2009.