Well, first, it seems fairly unrelated to that question in the context of this discussion -- we're talking about the proposal to require everyone who contributes money to engage in public advocacy to have their PII published openly. The original phrase was "shape public opinion", not "shape public policy". It's not clear to me how such rules would have had any effect on the scenario you're describing.
Second, the way you're describing that situation seems very odd. Surely the legislator in question had to make an intentional choice to accept the draft legislation from the corporate representative, make an intentional choice to introduce it into the legislative session, and then the other legislators had to intentionally choose to vote in favor of the bill, then the governor had to intentionally choose to sign it into law.
There are a many processes involving individuals taking intentional actions sitting in between the the corporation proposing the bill and it becoming law, so characterizing those people as having "zero input" seems invalid on its face.
If your complaint is that the intentions and incentives of the people who actually conduct the legislative process may not be aligned with what you consider to be the overall public interest, that's a totally valid argument. But that indicates a problem with the legislative process itself, so it seems very strange to attempt to address it by imposing limits on public discourse far upstream of where the problem is occurring, instead of proposing reforms to the legislative process itself.
Perhaps it makes sense to require disclosure of authorship of all draft bills brought before the legislature, including all incremental revisions made between initial proposal and final voting. Maybe all legislative work should be done in public Git repos, with detailed commit messages being required.
But that's a very different concept from forcing disclosure of the identity of anyone who donates funds to any organization expressing opinions in public discourse.