The qualifier about lobbying doesn't make the argument any more nuanced, since if both sides are lobbied to the point that they're under control of the same entity, then they are essentially both the same. Should I have said "Both sides have been corrupted to be the same!" to not misrepresent you?
And if you want a consistent Democratic majority in the Senate that can confirm justices who are willing to support stronger campaign finance laws, then you need to vote in midterms. Unless you think that both sides are the same, which is a good excuse not to bother.
I vote, but I'm not delusional to think that midterm voting is going to change the fact that our government doesn't represent its tax paying people. Your assumption was that I'm saying not to bother, no, I'm saying that there are some substantial problems with how our system has been taken advantage of by lobbying which is deeply seeded in our process. Thats why I take a issue with "both sides amiright!" I'd love to see that vote happen with stronger campaign finance laws, but it will not happen as that isn't what the people that throw billions into our politicians want to happen. We've just been sitting around in this country looking at how corporations have become more important people -- than people themselves. Who is going to put pressure on those candidates to get campaign finance law reform that trumps the money taken to run for office or campaign? Again, like what we are seeing with GOP representatives ignoring what a majority of republicans want. There is a core issue here that isn't going to be resolved by voting for people who are in seats paid for by lobbies to begin with. Its like the police investigating themselves of wrong doing. It always comes up negative.
I see too many instances of some small town candidate being railroaded by some giant fucking industry. And the people that allow the giant industry to railroad are the people making the rules, who often have revolving doors to said giant industry.