Would shifting regulatory power to Congress usher in a lobbying bonanza?

Ezra Klein wrote Would shifting regulatory power to Congress usher in a lobbying bonanza?.

"Republicans are trying to shift regulatory power from the executive branch to Congress in a bill that’s expected to pass the House today. The REINS Act would send any “major rule” that’s estimated to cost the economy more than $100 million to Congress — or have adverse effects on consumers, the business climate and individual industries — for an up-or-down vote. If Congress doesn’t approve the regulation in 70 days, it won’t take effect. The bill is dead-on-arrival in the Senate, but it underscores some of the GOP’s biggest anti-regulatory talking points."

"But federal regulators heading up that process don’t have campaign coffers to fill. Shifting the approval of such rules to Congress would, accordingly, shift their lobbying over to elected lawmakers who rely on campaign contributions. So although Republicans argue that the status quo lets “major decisions to be made by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats,” their alternative accordingly makes more regulations vulnerable to deep-pocketed contributors who shape the electoral cycle."

Based on the conversation with Jack Abramoff I saw the other day, this would be a complete disaster. It also makes complete sense that Congress would want this new source of income. Republicans at work.