However minimalistic lobbying can be, it falls under that category, and it goes to a hearing process.
This is because now we're in a situation where the panel review qualifies what lobbying is. They look at what the judge does, and they do the exercise of qualifying it. For example, in the case of Justice Spiro, they determined that Justice Spiro was voicing a concern, that he was not really actively lobbying, even though it was lobbying.
That's why we say that we want to add “lobbying, directly or indirectly” so that however minimalistic—I don't like to use that word—it seems, it's considered lobbying and it goes to a hearing. Now we have the review panel looking at two cases differently. They're looking at the same law, but they're reading it differently. By adding “lobbying, directly or indirectly”, we're bringing uniformity; it's not left to interpretation.