My brain tells me this would also lower corruption both legal and illegal because the number of representatives that would have to be paid to swing a vote would increase and make it less affordable for corporations to make "totally no strings attached" campaign contributions and other forms of bribery.
But my heart tells me most reps would sell out for a ham sandwich and 6,000 ham sandwiches don't cost that much.
Given how little crossing the aisle there is it might not be so hard to get your way if you're able to make an issue partisan with the current majority party supporting the side you want.
Trying to fix a rather large and mostly dysfunctional parliament, Italy recently tried the opposite solution: it slashed the number of representatives. It did not go well.
This is the easiest partial solution to the very undemocratic Electoral College and more proportional House representation, and it may have side benefits, like fewer committee assignments (allowing in depth knowledge of subject), fewer constituents per Rep, making campaigns less expensive, and maybe making it harder to coerce an unpopular policy into law. You'd have to get way more Reps to vote for it (one way or another).
Could you please expand on your point: "like fewer committee assignments (allowing in depth knowledge of subject)". This seems counter intuitive. I am not too familiar with how the committees work in Congress, but naively I feel like if there were more Reps, the committees would also grow in size? Or do you mean that we would get more committees instead with more specialization?
I think the idea is that while the committee size might grow, it shouldn't/doesn't need to grown in proportion to the size of the overall congressional size, leading to fewer committee assignments per rep.
But my heart tells me most reps would sell out for a ham sandwich and 6,000 ham sandwiches don't cost that much.