Can anyone explain to me
why the term "lobbyist" has come to mean something evil?

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the opening salvo of the Bill of rights, protects the right of citizens to petition their government for the redress of grievances.

The generally accepted definition of a lobbyist is someone who tries to influence legislation by influencing legislators. Does that not mean to "petition" them? If I seek redress of a grievance, but am personally dereft of the powers of persuasion, can I not ask you to speak on my behalf? Do you not then become a lobbyist? And who is this "government' we have the right to petition? Is it not a member of the legislature - which our Constitution guarantees the full power to create legislation?

I hear references to "undue" influence by lobbyists. Where in that 1st amendment does it proscribe limits to a citizen's petition?

The problem seems to be that the Constitution has been over interpreted. Too many great minds have expanded the meaning of those simple, clear sentences crafted by the founders. In broadcasting, we used to say: "K.I.S.S. - keep it simple, stupid". The Founders kept it simple. Why have we complicated it? The solution seems to be that we return to those simple, clear snetences.

Maybe it was John McCain (the very guy who comdemns lobbyists), in an appearance on the television program "The View" during the last presidential campaign, who suggested that return.

Whoopee Goldberg, one of the foolish voices on that program, began mouthing about a return to slavery, which existed when the Constitution was written.

Wait a minute, Whoopee... read the 9th amendment: It assures that enumeration of rights in the Constutution (which rights did NOT include slavery) could not be construed to deny citizens other rights. For further clarification, the 10th amendment spells out that any powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government or specifically denied to the states by the Constitution, are reserved to the states, or to the people!

The only thing clearer, perhaps, was Ayn Rand's explanation: The citizen has the right to do anything not specifically prohibited by law, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of fellow citizens. Conversely, the government has no rights unless specifically permitted by law. Seems to me that enslaving a person would certainly infringe upon his or her right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.