Getting billionaire cash out of politics is bipartisan, far more of a class divide than a red/blue divide.

Rich politicians that are on the take and heavily subsidized by PACs and especially dark money love it, on both sides of the aisle, and work to keep it legal at every level, including via their SCOTUS picks.

But regular people that want to enter civic service, as well as established politicians that are genuinely there to serve their communities as opposed to simply enriching themselves via power brokering, all hate it because it means that they can't even get a look in, or if they're already in then every two years (or whenever their own election cycle comes around) they have to stop everything and try to match the overwhelming amount of free cash their well-heeled opponent suddenly has to blanket airwaves and mailboxes and emails in their district.

Big money is a pox on both houses. Look at what Montana just did. Look at what American Promise is doing: they only need thirty-four states to pass a constitutional amendment to get big money out of politics and already have twenty-five.

This is not a hard sell on either side. It's just been made to look that way for over forty years by the rich who stand to lose their political power if they can't stay propped up by insane amounts of donor cash.

You're not weaving dreams. It is possible. And perhaps now even likely.