[colechristensen]

"Lobbyists" is just the label attached to the people who give input. Yes, they're professionals and yes, this is where the corruption happens, but that's just the nature of seeking input.

You surely don't expect companies to not advocate for themselves and be wholly altruistic? A lobbyist is paid to advocate for their client's interests. Sometimes that aligns with the public interest, most of the time it's a grey area.

There are plenty of opportunities for corruption in the interaction and those need to be addressed; rebranding 'lobbyists' isn't one of them.

[XaYdEk]

I would disagree, I think it's a label attached to those people that actively attempt to influence policy making on behalf of their client's interests.

Just offering specialized input would be consulting.

And the way I see it: company and industry group lobbying works just fine, but there is a significant lack of public interest lobbying.

[simplexion]

Nope. Definition of a lobbyist: "A lobbyist is someone hired by a business or a cause to persuade legislators to support that business or cause. Lobbyists get paid to win favor from politicians. For example, oil companies send lobbyists to Washington to try to make life easier for oil companies."

A lobbyist is a lobbyist. It's not the label assigned to people who give input in general.