The previous form of CSM was CSM5 btw :P That was not "politicians and legislature". Far from. It was due process, pressure management, collaboration - sadly with a big dose of self sabotage through the "meta" game - so to speak, which limited its continuity. CSM4 alrady started to shake off the politicians part. It's CSM6 where the politicians part has been put back on the table :P As for legislature, yes CSM5 adhered to rules & requirements. I can't say that was a bad thing though, and it is not the same as "legislation". With CSM5 anyone who wished so could find out what CSM was doing, what was on the table, and if they wanted they could even find out which CSM member was pulling his or her weight or not.
CSM6 removed that transparancy, and while removing that it also removed its consistancy and a huge part of its visibility. All of which are required for any CSM having any platform or foundation other than individual preferences. Not to mention that it is what enables politician / lobbyist / networker / etc. alike to not get caught in a position of dependancy on either that which pays or that which feeds. As we have seen happen with CSM6, which found itself caught BETWEEN customers and CCP until it got in gear and back on stage (and even now a lot of folks on eveo and other forums still bitch about CSM6 being CCP's advocates, which is bull, but that perception alone is damn dangerous).
The lobbyist without due diligence or best practices in instrumentation is always dependant on that on which he feeds. If you want a lobbyist without these things to focus on more than what feeds him for longer than the noses are long, you're going to have to look at - what in these contexts - CSM5 engaged to employ as methods.
Any lobby group rests on specific individuals, without elements of accountability or required functionality that provides visibility or transparancy without a need to force that through crisis. A lobby group concept is not be default a bad thing, keep that in mind, but it does come with significant vulnerabilities to abuse. And EVE has seen its share of lobby groups over the years, some put together by CCP, and some that simply came to be out of customers and CCP on occasions. None of it ended in healthy manners, because transparancy / visibility / consistancy always lacked - because it always ended up in special brosef relations and status for virtual altars (so to speak).
Yes, everything always comes down to people, and their interaction, that is correct. But there is a difference between interaction that has fixed procedures / processes attached, with requirements for each, and the interaction which resides solely with the individual and personal engaging without fixed procedures / processes / requirements. It's similar to CCP's classic confusion of person = position != function.
A great and capable person can use the lobby concept to be vastly more effective for short term goals, depending on the type of organisation he has to penetrate and engage in. But that rapidly becomes an argument of finding the good human. Which is a fun quest, so to speak, and as history shows one not very reliable. This aside of the simple observation that lobbyism focuses specifically on that which serves itself. That is only natural, it has to feed itself to provide continuity for itself.
I can write a wall of text on that, but that would take things too far here. As I've pointed out before, the CSM concept NEEDS a strong element of lobby. But as the lobby focus has simple and common vulnerabilities, and is ONE instrument (or rather, should be just one - why limit yourself?) and it is here contained in an environment and interaction which does carry the "meta" of EVE (doh) AND it has to deal with a company where the biggest vulnerabilities are found in the dependancy on lobby concept application for organisation ... there is a need for a buffer against vulnerabilities on either side.
A buffer is not difficult. Rules, requirements, best practices. Particularly those which serve what mittens would call one of the requirements of "power" for CSM (not "of", but "for"). If you want results that benefit from continuity of either process or progress, you are going to need instruments and events that have a consistant transparancy and visibility. Lobby groups are very vulnerable to the ego factor, and are averse to these things. Why? Because these things remove the ego from the venture.
All of this is not simply a case of "nullsec" or "winter" or "rockets". It's about EVE. There is plenty room in that where lobby can strive for influence on a detail level, but if the whole is to be kicked in gear again (meaningfully) then that detail level and that method really should be just one part of it all. After all, CCP plans for longer than one CSM in its business cycle. And we've seen the results of CCP engaging on planning without taking the benefits of utilising CSM on both detail and big picture level. None of it has been going anywhere for years.