Experts need to talk to politicians, but it should be done so through a proper institutional structure (for example a public hearing). Not in private meetings.

What influence groups say to policy makers has to be able to be challenged by opposing interest.

Not only that, but it's important for these advocacy groups to disclose their financing for all to see.

Its always going to be a cat and mouse game because ultimately corporations want to have undue influence over politics, it helps them greatly.

The first stepping stone needs to be to acknowledged that the interests of corporations can and in many cases will be against the interests of the majority of constituents and so we can't allow for our laws and practices to just waver this fact and institutionalise corruption through lobbying.

It's very naive to think consumers and the general population can organise to the effectiveness and level of a corporation. But that doesn't mean people don't care, or don't deserve to have their interests protected.

I think the fix is to make representative democracy recursive.

I can indicate other citizens that I trust on the basis of their expertise, and they can further indicate others in the same way.

The roots of those trees are my representatives for whatever domain, they have unequal standing proportional to the size of their constituency, and I can reconfigure my pointers towards different representatives at different times, or I can point them all at myself and show up in person for some direct democracy.

It’s too simplistic to think that the only form of political signaling that should happen is ... one person one vote as a basis for a mandate to represent peoples interests. It’s easy to see how that can lead to a tyranny of the majority situation. There does need to be a path for influence for those with special interests in an area to influence decisions also. I think the arguments usually come down to which types of special interests give which types of standing on an issue.. if we want to say a business working in an industry shouldn't lobby then do we also say that a local environmental group should(nt) have a say about some area they are experts on also?.. Some things are also put up for general referendum even when they outweightedly affect only a small group.. I think a lot of places had made progress towords finding this balance of steakholder representation.. but now were just slipping back to creptocracy and tyranny eveywhere and forgetting it all.

Why not find experts in e.g. universities? Or, like, hire people with industry experience to provide advice rather than let industry hire politicians?

I not think anyone means "talk to representative" when they say "lobbying" unless it is accompanied by contributions