Lobbying in general is problematic (though I think it's less clear-cut than I think people assume it is). But I'm clearly meant to be especially aghast at model legislation, which, to my eyes, seems strictly superior to the mode of lobbying where the lobbyists pay to have legislators write their bills for them.

To me, it feels like the complete lack of a deliberative process implies that the legislators are not actually providing meaningful oversight in the slightest.

Sure, oftentimes special interest groups will understand an issue in much more detail than a legislator (who almost by definition must be a jack-of-all-trades). But, it should also be clear that lobbying groups will very often use this knowledge for their personal gain, at the expense of other stakeholders. In my opinion, a good legislator would critically evaluate legislation, make changes, consult with other stakeholders, etc. Changes to the legislation imply an interest in the effects of the legislation (good or bad). But to instead allow legislation to be signed with your name with no, or few, changes to the text, shows that the legislator is willing to give the lobbyist everything they want, with no deliberation or push back.

That feels particularly suspect to me.

Wait. That’s an argument not in evidence either. Why is lobbying bad? The same arguments apply for model legislation. Legislators can’t be experts in everything they legislate so it behooves the people with vested interests & expertise to lobby their positions.

Yeah, like I said, I think the lobbying debate is more complicated than it seems at first blush, but I'll stipulate here that there are patterns of toxic lobbying that are worth worrying about. I just don't think model legislation is an indicator of those patterns.