Yes. That's the idea. Make the largest concentration of power an elected body auditable by the commons and whose actions are formalized by a bunch of rules, that they can choose, but still need to stick to.
So, billionaires are bad because they can use their money to enter into voluntary deals with other people, which can lead to them achieving goals we don't like. Therefore, we create a single point of concentration of power with totalitarian control and dictatorial powers, that can take resources from people they don't like and give those resources to others they do like.
And these people with totalitarian control over the commons and dictatorial powers over the commons and the most powerful lever on everyone whatsoever and especially on everyone with huge amount of money, will continue to be electable and auditable by the commons because... I don't know, probably because they feel like it, there is literally no other reasons or incentives for them to do so.
"Big money give a human to much power, so let's take all that power from EVERYONE, concentrate it in ONE PLAСE, and add to this power dictatorial powers and totalitarian control over society. Some might argue that this is the exact opposite of the stated goals of the whole undertaking, but they do not take into account the insurmountable protection in the form of MAGICAL RULES with the help of which society will be able to control all of this"
What matters to power is people, not places. Having power concentrated in one place, made up of hundreds of people who are elected and can be replaced, is fine. Having power concentrated in one or a few people is where things go wrong.
A centralized authority capable of so severely restricting the economic freedom of the most powerful people implies a far greater concentration of power than the one you're fighting against. You're proposing to cure the common cold with AIDS.