> Representatives have to put the collective voices of their constituents above their friends. Otherwise WTF are they paid to do?
Right, but why does the professionalization of lobbying imply politicians would be "hearing [...] only their friends and those paid for access"? I agree that it's certainly a possibility, and you'd be a better lobbyist if you had exclusive access, but that's like saying having employees own stocks imply insider trading (ie. it's certainly a possibility, and you'd be a better trader if you had insider information).
While lobbyists, friends, and campaign contributors aren't to only voices representatives will hear, they're more likely to get their desired outcomes -- even if it contradicts what's best for the whole. Incentives are stacked against the poor and less well connected.
Friends being paid to tell representatives something is just veiled bribery.
I'm not convinced the status quo is inevitable. When things become illegal and there is enforcement people generally adapt their behavior.
Campaign financing of course needs an overhaul, even McCain saw this. Yet there are some entrenched interests to overcome.