Some of the most unfair attacks in the presidential campaign—and in House and Senate races—aren’t leveled at those who are running for office. Negative ads by one politician against an opponent have been a fact of life in U.S. politics since the second election in our history. I don’t believe anyone had the temerity to fire a broadside at George Washington.

Although going negative can backfire, it is often effective and sometimes funny. I’m not going to join the chorus of teeth-gnashers who decry the nastiness of the electoral arena.

What is tedious is not negative ads but the clamoring each election cycle by candidates to bash special interests. This dimension of the presidential campaign is becoming nauseating because we get to see our next president, whoever he or she might be, essentially criticizing the democratic process.

Candidates are in Iowa and New Hampshire promising voters they won’t be swayed by corporate lobbyists and others who have an agenda to ply on Capitol Hill and at federal agencies. But this argument insults the intelligence of the electorate.

A president who wants to know what voters think should listen to the people who represent millions of them, whether they are corporate front men and women or union officials. Lobbying is simply the aggregate exercise of each person’s constitutional right to petition the government.

For our readers, that means there are lobbyists speaking to legislators on behalf of companies stressing that Congress fix the flawed government employment verification system before foisting it on every employer in America. It means there are government relations practitioners who are meeting with the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security to help shape workplace regulations. It means there are lawyers talking to legislators about the potential unintended consequences of 401(k) fee legislation.

One major misperception about the “influence industry” is that it mostly involves corporate fat cats trying to get their way. Remember that union representatives are just as much lobbyists as those who are speaking for General Motors in Capitol Hill meetings. Unions are rich and powerful, as demonstrated by the high-priced D.C. real estate on which most of their offices are built and by the success they’re having in shaping the House agenda for workplace law.

Why on earth wouldn’t a president want to listen to those who represent industry and those who represent workers? In fact, if he or she ignores them, it could be called a dereliction of duty.

Are some lobbyists corrupt? Absolutely. Many congressional scandals have proved it.

The important thing is that presidents and members of Congress maintain their integrity. They should not allow themselves to be bought off by corporate or union contributions. Political donations should buy access, not votes.

But those who pitch Washington officials for favorable legislation and regulations are not, for the most part, a nefarious cabal trying to undermine democracy. Their work each day helps uphold our constitutional rights.