It's what zwily said. Among the majority population, lobbying is seen as what businesses do to get laws written that are favorable to their interests, including tax breaks, energy subsidies, etc. In concept people understand that when a congressperson needs to learn about something in order to make a decision, he or she should be talking to experts. In practice (the perception is) those experts tend to try to persuade more than educate. So, in the example of the drones flying for example, the lawmakers may be learning of all of the good outcomes of easing FAA regs and letting Amazon fly drones, and may even distinguish between large companies (or another grouping in which Amazon falls) and a grouping that their competitors may fall into (say, smaller companies) in a way that becomes a barrier to entry for the competitors. This will obviously be seen as reasonable in some sense, but there may have been a better way to do things that didn't raise the barrier for competition. Amazon lobbyists are unlikely to help the congressperson understand that other way.

At least, that's how some perceive it.

Are you saying this is not how it is? There is a lot of downvoting of anti-lobbying sentiment here, but I haven't seen a reasonable explanation as to why yet, and I'm curious. Everything I've read tends to indicate that it's a net negative for society when well funded, non-objective parties essentially write the laws.

I think it can be that way, but I don't know if it always is. For instance, in making marine laws for pleasure boaters lobbying occurs where a group (BoatUS, for example, or the non-profit United States Power Squadrons) will push for a law (or to prevent one) without a real profit motive. These are about things like requiring people to wear life jackets in dinghies or being allowed to anchor in certain regions.