Interesting idea. I guess one problem is that it would mean that only richer companies who could afford to pay the taxes could then afford to influence government.

We have in Norway some ways already that has helped keep money out of politics. We basically solved it at the opposite end. By banning most political ads, we made the benefit of having lots of money less important.

Also a decent public support of political parties. During the postwar years they had stakeholder councils are a formalized sort of lobbying. So e.g. a council or advisory board for industry might have two politicians, a worker and a representative from industry present.

So industry would influence government through these boards rather than through lobbying. The advantage was that one could make sure that also those with less money such as workers had representation and influence on these questions.

It has a lot in common with deliberative democracy, which I discussed here:

https://erik-engheim.medium.com/should-we-have-deliberative-democracy-da7d8f5aae69

But in general I agree with you basic premise that we need to look at the incentives behind lobbying. Taxing it is one way to reduce incentive for lobbying but removing the things politicians can spend money on to gain an advantage also helps disincentivize seeking money for political advantage.