I wonder what extent this is decided by how we vote. As long as voters pick the politician who prioritizes the middle man and gets their campaign contribution is selected over the politician who prioritizes the public but whose opponent gets the middleman's campaign contribution we will continue to see this behavior. The moral of the story is to look at the voters' actions and not their words. They select candidates based on oftentimes harmful criteria.
How much does someone want something if they aren't willing to change their behavior to increase the chance of getting it?
Second, I was just addressing the claim that politicians pass these laws in response to broad support, by questioning whether such broad support actually exists, even if it doesn't translate into lobbying (since the implicit model i that politicians will still care about it).
I think you're falsely equating (as do the Norquist types)
a) "the financial burden of the tax should be explicit" (which is fair) and
b) "the paperwork should be unnecessarily burdensome" (which is sadistic).