They are wrong but also unrelated to the issue of free public transport and hence include trade offs which don’t directly affect public transport.

Effectively, to offer free public transport, you have to reduce the power of lobbyists and dark money in politics.

To promote solar power, you have reduce the power of lobbyists and dark money.

To promote anti-vaccine ideology, you have to reduce the power of lobbyists and dark money.

To promote a strictly equal society where every person is judged by their abilities and not ethnic history and skin color, you have to reduce the power of lobbyists and dark money.

There are vested interests in every debate and saying we should aim for wholesale societal change for every low hanging result is a recipe for inaction (or at least, very delayed action)

> Effectively, to offer free public transport, you have to reduce the power of lobbyists and dark money in politics.

Do you actually though? Or do you just have to do it in a way that they won't stop you?

There are at least three ways to do that. You can do it in a way that it actually doesn't cause trouble for them, you can do it in a way where they can't stop you (e.g. at a different level of government where they have less influence), or you can do it in a way where they can't see what you're trying to do until after it's already done.

"Reduce the influence of lobbyists and money" doesn't even mean anything. If you want something to happen or not happen, you're lobbying. If you spend time or resources trying to achieve your goals, that's money. What people mean is they want to reduce the influence of people they don't like. It's fully generic, you might as well say that in order to win you have to defeat your opponents.