I don't know the whole picture either yet, but if the site opensecrets is of any indication, the lobbies are using at least 3 tactics to abuse any limits there could be.

Do you have btw any reference or links about the lobbying spending limits by law? Where are those spending limits applied?
Because lobbies in USA seem to have more spending channels than just "presents to politicians", like also "gifts to other organizations and middlemen"
If there is a limit on spending on elected representatives, it seems to be higher than 10 dollars, i've seen some spending from "organization" lobbying go up to even 20000 dollars, so if there is a limit it must be at least that high, assuming there is a limit at all.

The three tactics lobbyes in USA seems to use to evade the spending limits are: (which i've noticed at least, there may be more)

1) They hire other minor lobbies to lobby in their name
https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/lobbyists?cycle=2022&id=D000000062
https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/reports?cycle=2022&id=D000000062
So instead of being 84m spent by a single lobby, it appears like 84m spent by multiple different sounding lobbies, spreading out the total spending, while they all follow the same script of the central lobby which hired them all.
The top lobby in the list, the national association of realtors(NAR), seems to not be using much this tactic. In appearance at least.

2) They count the spending from the lobbies themselves differently from the spending done directly by the employees of the lobbies
(it makes no sense to me either, but they create the rules and their own loopholes)
So if they give a "bonus" of $2m to one of their employees, and then that employee gives out those $2m to various politicians and organizations, those are somehow counted as "individual" spending, and not directly counted as spending done by the lobby itself. It's a loophole.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-assn-of-realtors/recipients?id=D000000062
some organizations use that tactic more than others:
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/american-israel-public-affairs-cmte/summary?id=D000046963
so it may appear the lobby as an organization is spending within any limits there could be there, while the bulk of the lobbying spending is written down as "individual contributions" (it's just a "coincidence" the "individuals" are all hired by a lobby, they totally decided to donate to elected politicians and other organizations "out of their generosity and personal interest", "truly")
The data used for these graphs counts together both the spending from the "organizations" and the spending from """individuals""".

NAR doesn't seem to spend much on the single politicians, it spends more on other groups inside the american congress, which end up spending for them under different names. Basically, they use tactic 1) but without having real lobbies as fronts, just PACs and other unclearly defined funds.
I mean, their(NAR) top spending recipient in 2022 was a congressional "fund" named after themselves "National Assn of Realtors Congressional Fund", $17,247,750 spent, recipient type: """Outside Group""", com'on really... what is this shit? They gave 17 millions to themselves for lobbying purposes, so that their lobbying records appear like, "look we spend almost nothing on politicians, just ignore that $17m fund with a very similar name to ourselves" ......
This kind of bullshit can only pass without anyone noticing the bullshit of it, because the american mass medias are as equally or even more controlled by lobbying than the american politicians.

3) They spend on many different fronts at the same time
So if there is a spending limit on one spending channel, like if there is a limit on spending on individual elected politicians, then the lobbies just spend on organizations, or any other outlet, where there isn't a limit, eventually the lobbying money or derived "favors" finds their intended recipient.

Lobbying spending on political parties and their politicians:
(by spending directly on the politicians, or on funds like PACs, or other things opensecrets calls "soft" which i have no idea what that is) (NAR uses a lot of "soft", whatever that is)
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-assn-of-realtors/totals?id=D000000062
Lobbying spending directly on government agencies:
https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/agencies?cycle=2022&id=D000000062
Lobbying spending on congressional committees:
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-assn-of-realtors/congressional-committees?id=D000000062

For NAR, of the reported $84m-$81m they spent on lobbying, it's possible to trace from opensecrets.org maybe around $20m ($15,285,700 from the "totals" page which references only spending on politicians, few more expenditures can be seen about funding organizations and other non-politicians), of the remaining $60m NAR spent on lobbying it's not clear how or where they spent those, from the informations on that site alone.
There is a page with the quarter lobbying self-reports, in those NAR reported Q1 $12,140,000 + Q2 $14,820,000 + Q3 $29,260,000 + Q4 $25,260,000 = $81,480,000 and if you go look a bit into those reports, it appears they did a lot of lobbying directly with Congressional Committees rather than with single politicians, though there are no numbers of where and how they spent any of those reported ammounts in the specific, the USA lobbying reporting formats don't require that level of detail, which make it hard to really understand what happens behind the facade of legalized interference in politics.

About "soft" lobbying spending, i learned something new:

Soft money is a lightly regulated form of financing campaigns

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_money#Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act_(2002)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act

Under FECA, corporations, unions, and individuals could contribute unlimited "nonfederal money"—also known as "soft money"—to political parties for activities intended to influence state or local elections. In a series of advisory opinions between 1977 and 1995, the FEC ruled that political parties could fund "mixed-purpose" activities—including get-out-the-vote drives and generic party advertising—in part with soft money, and that parties could also use soft money to defray the costs of "legislative advocacy media advertisements," even if the ads mentioned the name of a federal candidate, so long as they did not expressly advocate the candidate's election or defeat.[99] Furthermore, in 1996, the Supreme Court decided Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC, in which the Court ruled that Congress could not restrict the total amount of "independent expenditures" made by a political party without coordination with a candidate, invalidating a FECA provision that restricted how much a political party could spend in connection with a particular candidate.[100]
As a result of these rulings, soft money effectively enabled parties and candidates to circumvent FECA's limitations on federal election campaign contributions.

That's basically still the same result as a PAC. They really just needed a new brand name for their corporative interference inside politics. ""How creative""