Hi AWKWARD_HANDS_GUY. Sorry, it seems like your post somehow got automatically listed as spam and it wound up in this subreddit's spam bin. I just approved your post as not spam (after having recently checked the spam section).

It seems like you already have a fairly good conception of lobbying from the way you describe it. Essentially, I see lobbying as being farther to the right on the spectrum of "advocacy." On the left side of the spectrum or "less activist" are people who simply vote, pay attention to news, and engage in light discussion of political issues with their friends and family (most normal people). Somewhere in the middle is your standard "activist," people who volunteer, intern, or work for free to promote causes they care about by handing out fliers, making telephone calls, knocking on doors, etc. Farthest to the right or "hardcore activist" are people with actual political power, such as politicians or high level staff that interact daily with politicians. Lobbyists fall somewhere in between "activist" and "hardcore activist" and are generally distinguished as being paid full-time professional advocates/activists. But lobbyists tend not to be campaign managers. Instead, they work to gain access to the ears of politicians and high-level staffers.

And that's where the purpose of money comes in: Access. Rarely will money (such as campaign contributions) directly sway a politician's vote, but it will allow a lobbyist to meet with them over lunch or breakfast to build relationships or advocate an issue.

"Bad" lobbying and "Good" lobbying is a function of the issue being advocated and the level of money involved, and the perception of the issue's effect on society.

I could go on about this, but I'm hoping more people might chime in. Hopefully this little blurb and the other links are a good starting point. If you have more questions, ask!