Isn't it literally a constitutional right? It's not a side-effect of anything - it's a right by itself.
I can't understand anyone suggesting that we should not be allowed to present our opinions to the government. What are you in favour of? Just voting once every four years or so and never saying anything else the rest of the time? Bizarre.
It's not the "saying anything else", it's the listening: Sure, anyone has the right to say anything they want. The difference is that the government doesn't listen to most people -- how could they? Where would they take the time to listen to everyone; when would they get anything else done? It's not as if there's any constitutional right to be heard -- but some people and organisations, they do somehow magically find the time to listen to.
Pretending that this is just "a super-basic part of democracy everywhere" in stead of highly correlated with how much money the ones who get heard have contributed to the campaigns of the ones doing the sympathetic listening is disingenuous in the extreme.
Intuit isn't a person, it didn't vote and it has no place telling the government what to do for the people. A company has no opinions, only a bottom line and in many lobbying cases a bunch a shareholders. A government isn't a company and doesn't need to have financial gain, it needs to support the collective people of the country it governs.
If the CEO of Intuit phones their representative and says they think some change to the tax code is bad that's lobbying and that's fine to me.
If the CEO of Intuit (or a representative of Intuit) just called the same phone line the rest of us get, sure there wouldn’t be a difference there. Even if the representatives were calling on Inuit from their side because they believed Intuit has relevant insights into the tax code, that would be fine. But that’s not what’s happening. It’s the way political donations buy access to representatives attention in ways that the non-rich don’t have access to that people take issue with.
A company is essentially a sociopath that does not have to follow a social contract, has no limited lifespan, doesn't need to eat, sleep, have shelter, and doesn't feel pain or joy. All it does is extract as much value as possible, at any cost, including joy, safely and general lives of others.
A government that panders to sociopathic wealth hoarders isn't a government, but just another company and the people in general are worse off for it.
And even then, does it matter? The point is that voters, which is what the government exists for, should be the ones to assess what they want, not the sociopathic wealth hoarder with the most wealth. If you want to define an ultra specific scope around that, you can do that.
Obviously a company as an abstract entity does not lobby. An individual human being lobbies. A voter.
Even an absolute monarch is going to have have various people/groups petitioning. For reasons both good and selfish.