I'm sure I'm not the only note you'll get on this, but (as yet another ex hill staffer) I don't think the "expiry over $250K" vote is nearly as easy a vote as you make it out to be. Certainly it polls well, but a lot of members see the $250K+ people as their donors, coevals, colleagues, friends, etc. Most of the people (lawyers, lobbyists, business owners, PR people) who walk through the door of your average congressional office on a daily basis (excepting constituent tourist visitors) are making well over $250K.

As I've said before, Democratic politicians make their money the same way republican politicians do, so their interests don't align with those of their constituents. Politicians are elected and can be led if the people choose to lead, but if their constituents imagine that their own interests align with the wealthy then democratic politicians are able to represent their own interests while claiming to represent the will of the people.

it's not in Democratic politicians' self-interest to argue against Republican con men and snake-oil salesmen. It's in their self-interest to be passive; they can always blame others for the result.

Adversarialism is the key requirement of democracy, and markets are one form of adversarialism; but adversarialism is formal and not always free.

For all the conservative and neoliberal defense of competition, the relations of the classes are always required to be collaborative.