I think it depends how you see the political divide. Some people see the divide as a class divide between people with money and power, and those without. From

I think it depends how you see the political divide. Some people see the divide as a class divide between people with money and power, and those without. From that point of view, there is a sense that people with money are trying to retain power through recruiting a portion of people without money to be on their side in order to market the policies that benefit them. They'll see this "recruiting" being done by the rich generally using an appeal to emotion, scape goating, group endoctrination, religious endoctrination, propaganda, and fear mongering techniques. This example with the tea party is seen as another such attempt, where the rich pays non-rich people to recruit others to their cause, making the others believe this isn't driven by a rich person, but instead from their own peers, which is kind of what grassroots is. So from that point of view, if a rich person is donating to a conservative movement it does seem to be against the non-rich populace. It looks like scheming from the rich in order to uphold their class. This also isn't without historical precedent, conservatism actually comes from the old aristocracy, they invented conservatism, the idea that hereditary power and inheritance are the way of life, and thus those traditions should remain, as a way to keep clinging on their riches and power they were fearful of losing while the various revolutions in the United States and France were happening. Nowadays, there's more to conservatism then just that, but some people still see that aspect of it as the continued class war, as every rich powerful person fears losing their power and riches and thus constantly try to protect themselves through conservatism.