It looks bad here because in this case the root cause is the quid-pro-quo/pay-to-play lobbying system.

The transparency SHOULD be good in that it should be able to show the electorate whether reps did what they said they would.

In reality it is, as mentioned above, instead used to appease a small but powerful body of the electorate.

If I had to pick between transparency and lobbying (in its current form), I'd take transparency.

The person saying transparency wasn't a good thing was saying that because transparency allows for more efficient lobbying, it has resulted in a more easily gamed system.

The tradeoff they are pointing out isn't "transparency or lobbying" it's "transparency + rampant lobbying vs secrecy + less effective lobbying"

Related: there's a reason lack of transparency in individual voting is critical for fair elections.