I also don't doubt that there are times when 3rd parties are served or even well served by the outcomes of such lobbying.
So lobbying can have good outcomes.
But these things ought not be decided based on who has money and who doesn't.
I am all for impacts being analyzed and plans being made to make sure people are not unduly disrupted, but decisions should be made on merit.
It is difficult to separate the feelings that someone bought a result you don't like from an objective analysis of whether what you wanted them to do was rejected after an analysis of the issues. In this case, a "tell me how much I owe" version of federal taxes -- I seem to recall that there was such a system in place many years ago (1970's?) where the taxpayer would send in a form saying "tell me what you want" and the IRS did. I don't hear much about that anymore, so I suspect that it died, and why it died may give a clue to why it wasn't a good idea to bring it back. I don't know.
We should not allow buggy whip manufactures to be able to lobby to ensure their livelihood.
Why not? If you grant that there are sometimes good outcomes from lobbying, just how do you write this new law prohibiting buggy whip makers while still allowing the useful lobbying?
What SHOULD be the rule is that decisions are made based on merit, and anyone who wants to lobby should have the right to make that speech.