Here’s an example:
If a few people conspire to commit fraud against a certain city or town, they get their own people hired into key positions by favoritism and elected to office through manipulating elections, then get some laws passed that create a boondoggle that floats city-issued bonds to pay for their own corp which was supposed to build a road or something, then they abscond with the money and do nothing, and the taxpayers are left paying off the bonds...
That is fraud and a conspiracy; it’s a crime on the part of the perpetrators, not the “fault” of the voters for “voting in the wrong people”. The elections and hiring efforts were part of the conspiracy. If the conspirators had backed no one at all in the elections and had not had any of “their own men” hired into key positions, they would not be part of the conspiracy. Then again, in that case, the voters would not be at fault either, since there were fair elections and hirings. The whole conspiracy then would simply be the influence of people who were already in power.
Uwise leaders are different from leaders who conspire to bankrupt a government on purpose.
I don't believe in victims. Everyone seems to be pushing their own version of victimhood these days and this article is one more version of that.
I will also note that you didn’t answer a single question that I posed. I made no comment at all about whether ultra-rich money movers exist or not and whether they use their influence on government or not. Obviously that does exist to some extent on every level of society and government.