My 2c FWIW
I do not think any reform can happen by just trying to focus on targeting, convincing (or gaining the favour) of politicians.
Politicians of all sides do not want to take risks that may cost them power unless they either really believe the policy is critically important or they believe the risk to their political career is small.
It isn't personal. It isn't fair or the best way to achieve good outcomes but it's politics and that is what we have to deal with.
The only way I can see politicians supporting meaningful reform is if they can see that the "money over safety" tactic can be convincingly countered, so the public (in the main) won't swallow it. Do that and we will be far more likely to get politicians on board.
I think we need a more educated public. I really doubt politicians will lead here - it can only come from GA itself.
The more the average (non-aviation) person sees GA as being something that benefits the community and that can be regulated and fostered in a better way, the more chance we have of getting politicians on board. Most people are not fools, most simply do not know the issues and so are easy targets for spinning simplistic criticisms like "safety must be the only priority, irrespective of costs".
Perhaps the efforts and resources of groups like AOPA (and GA identities with a high public profile), should be aimed at gaining a higher public profile for GA, highlighting how it benefits the community, how it is under stress and how like all transport issues (not just aviation), in the interests of practicality and general benefit, we must always end up balancing safety against cost. Where that balance point lies is what is important, not that such a balance must be made.
However it is done I think it should avoid making it easy to criticise as simply being a "money over safety" push but looks realistically at risk and benefits. (The old "affordable safety" slogan whilst accurate was too easy to misunderstand on initial hearing - it sounds scary to an uninformed public - eg imagine how people would react to a news story about a new end of life health policy called "affordable palliative care" - it may well be compassionate and give better care but people will never get that far and reject it on first hearing - it sounds like a cost cutting policy not a better outcome policy).
I would not frame it as "cost versus safety" but more as "safety, sustainability and utility" (or something along those lines). After all that is what I want from GA.