So, your cure to having (in your view) a conspiracy of the rich secretly influencing government is to arrange it so only the wealthy can afford to work in government?
You really disable your logic and reason with your use of prejudicial rhetoric. What is the relevance or value of ascribing to me a view described as "having a conspiracy of the rich secretly influencing government" as the only alternative to having "only the wealthy"who can afford to work in government? You miss the whole meaning, entirely.
government is a sort of necessary thing, and people may have hugely varying views of what is "good" or "necessary" in governance.
Having it exist as a tool for personal power or profit is a notion as old as the hills. Having it exist as a servant of the people is the revolutionary aspiration of the American founders, perhaps never very well implemented in practice.
I don't think there is anything particularly unwelcome either in having organizations with interests in the government, nor in having "wealthy" persons operating the government, so long as it is not being made a personal tool, where it is legitimately only a public tool only properly used to address some needed public service.
People who act corruptly, misdirecting the funds or privileges of power to interests other than the general public, are as a rule, bad conspirators. Personal benefits other than organized benefits, actually.
The possible value or contributions organizations, such as the CFR for example, or the Chamber of Commerce say, could be good for the public..... or bad..... depending on the coherence of the organization's values to the public values.
We could argue UN as a serviceable agent of mankind, benefiting mankind, as well. But again, the coherence of the values promoted with those of the people is the real issue. When the ordinary people are viewed as subjects to be manipulated and managed, I say those values are incoherent with the public good.
