I'm of the opinion that the effect of lobbying is tiny. Lobbyists are communicating with representatives about policy...something that every organization should attempt to do. Politicians rely on lobbyists to inform their decisions.
The real culprit in the pervasive corporatism in the US is campaign finance. Quid pro quo is the name of the game here. Politicians know that if corporations aren't helping them get elected that they will be helping their opponents get elected. It's a hell of a lot easier to say no to a lobbyist than it is to a campaign donor that could easily turn on you. If we banned corporate lobbying, Congress would simply make more uninformed decisions, but banning corporate campaign finance would eliminate an incentive for deliberately bad decisions.
It looks to me like your opinion is based on drawing an artificial distinction between "real lobbyists" and what real lobbyists actually do.
It is the job of lobbyists to get politicians to do what the lobbyist wants. Campaign finance, job offers, favors for people the politician cares about, status symbols such as honorary degrees - all are normal stock in trade for a lobbyist.
That said, I agree. Lobbyists who do none of the things that are known to be effective, are ineffective and do not have an impact. They also do not deliver results and do not tend to get happy clients.
Lobbying has a real and narrow legal definition, and it does not include the other things you list there. It sounds like you're agreeing with GP and that you don't think that lobbying is that effective.
Given sites like https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobby_contribs.php that document the campaign contributions of lobbyists, I'm going to want a reference to the legal definition of lobbying that excludes campaign contributions.
The real culprit in the pervasive corporatism in the US is campaign finance. Quid pro quo is the name of the game here. Politicians know that if corporations aren't helping them get elected that they will be helping their opponents get elected. It's a hell of a lot easier to say no to a lobbyist than it is to a campaign donor that could easily turn on you. If we banned corporate lobbying, Congress would simply make more uninformed decisions, but banning corporate campaign finance would eliminate an incentive for deliberately bad decisions.