This is more of a frame challenge than a direct answer, but I think your question touches on a common misconception about lobbying. When you see a report that Vandelay Industries spent $17M lobbying Congress this year, that doesn't mean that they gave $17M to politicians or their campaigns. They may not have actually given anything at all to politicians.
The big money gets paid to lobbying firms, who operate somewhat like a law firm. They charge clients to perform services like doing research on legislation, finding expert witnesses, testifying in hearings, presenting information to politicians, running media campaigns, etc. This article, while several years old, gives an interesting overview of the wide scope of things that a lobbying firm does and touches on how lobbying reform legislation has changed things over the years. A firm might have a small team of skilled specialists working full-time for a certain client, and those billable hours add up extremely quickly. One of the lobbyists interviewed said that lobbying was "about communication, not favors or hand outs".
With all that in mind, the link between lobbying spending and government corruption is a lot weaker than many people think. It's not a direct funnel into a politician's pocket (at least not under current laws), so limiting lobbying wouldn't have the sort of impact that you're thinking of. There are still some ways that it can indirectly cause problems, but those are all separate issues that go beyond the scope of lobbying.
One example is that politicians very frequently work on laws governing subjects that they don't have much knowledge of. They typically have degrees in law or political science so when a bill on internet privacy or wildlife management comes up, they rely on subject-matter experts (which can be provided by lobbyists) to educate them with enough information to make a decision. Intense lobbying can mean that officials primarily see only one side of an issue. This potential problem is primarily remedied by lobbyists working on the other side of the issue, whether that's for a corporation, a citizen's group, or a non-profit organization. Congress will also invite experts to testify on various issues, allowing them to solicit a wide range of opinions. If you see a subject being discussed and feel like a certain viewpoint is not represented, you can directly lobby Congress yourself. Call your representatives, send a letter, etc. Even if you don't talk to them directly, they'll know that X number of people called about some issue and that alone can be enough for them to solicit more viewpoints.
Another example: It's not uncommon for a politician to "retire" and then get a lucrative job as a lobbyist. Since they worked in government for a long time, they can get things accomplished much more effectively than an outsider. Need to kill that new highway project? They can tell you what lines of argument will or will not be persuasive, they'll know exactly who to go to to get the reports and data that you need, and they'll know which congressmen will either support your cause or may turn supportive if presented with the facts. An outsider may have to stumble around for months trying to figure all of this stuff out, and can have trouble even getting on a congressman's schedule in the first place. Having former government officials on your side can be a massive advantage. It's not directly a corrupting influence, though, because they no longer have any direct power or role in government. You're paying them for their knowledge and experience, just like you would an experienced lobbyist who never held any government position. Where it becomes a problem is when it transcends legitimate lobbying. The retired official might be able to pressure someone who owes them a favor to change their vote on something. A trade industry group might insinuate that they'll hire a congressman as their lobbyist later if they help pass the laws that they want. The official might be able to use classified information that isn't supposed to be available to outsiders. These are all separate issues that would exist in a world without lobbying, though. Most of those are already illegal (but hard to prove). As much as this can be caused by corruption, it's more a symptom of a government that is so large and complex that the only way to navigate it efficiently is to have many years of experience inside of it.
Lobbyists used to use money to influence officials through elaborate travel and entertainment. A lobbyist in the article linked above said
“Many years ago I actually had personal [Portland Trailblazers]
tickets, and when legislators were able to accept invitations to
dinner and a game I did take them,” Conkling said. “But the
legislature changed those rules, and as a general rule we don’t
entertain legislators at all.” He also does not have any personal
lobbying spending reported this year.
Now, when a legislator meets with a lobbyist for a meal, they
Most places have already outlawed this type of thinly-veiled bribery. It was common for many years, however, and is one reason that the term "lobbyist" has such a bad connotation.
There are many other ways that wealthy individuals can have a (much larger, IMO) corrupting influence on politicians (PACs, excessive speaking fees, insider trading, giving lucrative "jobs" to an official's friends or family members, etc.) but those are unrelated to lobbying and out of scope for this question.