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.