> If I send an e-mail to my congress critter, I'm technically a lobbyist.
I believe if you are representing a special interest, this is indeed technically lobbying. You still have a right to send as an individual, but lobbying through email very likely falls under ethics rules for lobbyists.
But sending an email as an individual is communication specifically mentioned in the first amendment of petitioning the government for redress of grievances.
> So any legislation on lobbying is by definition a violation on the first amendment.
Yes, it does abridge easy abuse in the first amendment. That does not mean it's a problem, but that it must rise to the level of abridgement. Just like multiple other things that are abusive when rights are taken to extremes or when rights conflict with other rights, something has to give. Attacking someone is unconstitutional, but if it's in self-defense, suddenly that's okay because we've decided that harming someone is okay in that case. Some rights trump other rights. Fortunately, the constitution provides for such abridgements in article I sec 8, and it has been used for both good and evil -- mostly for good. Disallowing hidden corporate entities to unethically influence government policy is in the public interest.
And I do agree with your last paragraph, although there should be limits of what needs to be tracked, or we run into ridiculous minutia such as reporting a lobbyist handing someone a tic-tac. More importantly, it should prevent anyone in congress from leaving their congressional job and becoming a lobbyist for any industry.