What's more effective: front channels or back channels?

[Nik]

Talking here about 'democracy', 'anti-trust', 'lobbying' and stuff, at least I have a feeling of distortion.
In a democracy - a majority is supposed to decide how the things should look or work. Supposedly it has the power, although in a republican type of governance - delegated to elected representatives, but:
1) Who cares to check what the majority wants in any specific area? Yeah, there are occasional referenda, but they are kinda rare.
2) Unless somehow organized and represented by activists - who's gonna move/promote its agenda?
3) Maybe a majority is too many people to cater?
On the other hand, the minority of those who have focused and narrow interests know very well how to guard them, even if the majority would prefer the exact opposite regulation (if anyone cared to ask).
Not that I have statistics - but my guess would be that lobbyists might take 8 out of 10 versus (potential) popular support. What's your evaluation?
We see how painful, for example, is the realization of Brexit in the UK, but how well industries or even specific manufacturers promote their agenda.
So who's benefiting from the system the most or has more levers?

[Scout]

Is the question about whether lobbyists have more influence than the majority? Or, in other words, does money have more influence than the will of the majority? If that's the question, I'd say yes.