You can make a compelling case for pretty much anything if you don't have to present conflicting views. That's what lobbyists are experts for.

> Are most of these representatives just willfully corrupt?

Yes, but they prefer the terms "lobbying" and "campaign contributions".

While theoretically they are concerned with their constituency so they can keep their job, the big problem with our system is the expense of running campaigns. While serving in congress, our representatives a massive amount of time is spent "dialing for dollars". The parties even require ("encourage") spending time "fundraising".

This makes lobbying easy. Constructing a compelling case isn't necessary. Just promise to free up their time by making various donations to their campaign and/or their party. This is legal as long as there isn't specific quid pro quo, thanks to McDonnell v United States.

John Oliver's overview of the problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylomy1Aw9Hk

It's illegal for corporations to make campaign donations. McDonnell has nothing to do with that.

If the corporation is donating directly, it should be possible to show that the legislation was quid pro quo.

I'm sure you're familiar with the numerous ways corporations (and others) add indirection when donating. Especially in the era of "Super PACs".

think of elected representatives as beholden to shareholders, rather than voters, and it might make more sense to you.

You can easily attribute it to laziness. They don't research a topic themselves so whoever makes the best presentation gets the vote. Usually that's lobbyists because they have more money and time and are hired as excellent communicators. Dinner invitations and paid flights in private jets help too.

Right, and the lobbyists are hired, not because the corporations that hire them are inherently evil, but because they are mandated by their shareholders to change costly laws rather than comply with them. I'm not blaming our elected representatives, they are just part of a failing system.

Actually you should blame the representatives. They should be there for ALL citizens and have the greater good in mind not just the narrow interests of some.

>I'm having a hard time imagining a compelling case that the lobbyists could present though.

If I were them:

Look how much money Google and Facebook make doing this. Doesn't make sense to prevent AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast from doing the same.

I suppose you could pitch it as making the internet more efficient economically. I don't think that increased consumer purchasing is necessarily high value, but it certainly has economic benefits to spending.