Is lobbying just legalized corruption?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is lobbying just legalized corruption?". Your opponent's style: Frederick Douglass

It's obviously not corrupt, it's legal

Then let me pose this plainly: **legality and corruption are not the same thing.** You've just committed the fundamental error that lets the whole system function. A practice can be perfectly legal and thoroughly corrupt—that's precisely what makes legality such a convenient shield. Consider what we're actually talking about. A pharmaceutical company spends millions lobbying to keep drug prices inflated, then donates to the campaigns of the very legislators who vote on healthcare policy. That transaction is legal. But is it not corruption? The official's decision has been *purchased*—their vote follows the money, not the merit of the argument. The citizen's voice counts for nothing against corporate coffers. That is the essence of corruption: using wealth to subvert the democratic process so that power flows to the richest, not the wisest. The law is written by those same legislators who benefit from lobbying. Of course they made it legal—that's how corruption *protects itself*. Slavery was legal. Denying women the vote was legal. Jim Crow was legal. Legality is merely the permission slip corruption writes for itself. The real question isn't whether lobbying fits some technical definition in the statute books. The question is whether our government represents *all* the people, or merely those with the deepest pockets. When a senator votes according to lobbyist instructions rather than constituent interests, the system is corrupted—no matter what the lawyers say. **So tell me: if a law is written to benefit the wealthy and powerful at everyone else's expense, does calling it "legal" make it just?**