Ideally, yes. In practice, the 1% have resources the 99% don't which allow them to minimize their exposure to mass surveillance. Whether this means carving out exemptions for their own communications or conducting their meetings in person, in private, in other jurisdictions.
Quibbling over the mathematical inaccuracy of the term is tilting at windmills. You'd have better luck getting people to stop using the word "literally" to mean its opposite.
The top 1% are pretty close to having most of the wealth in the US. They have about a third of it. Then 90-99 have about a third, 50-90 have about a third, and 0-50 have a rounding error.
The top 0.1% have about 15-20% of the wealth, which is very concentrated but not a very big fraction of the entire pie. Meaningful cutoffs are tricky to assign.
I don't know how to measure power. You could probably assign a lot of power to the top 0.01%, but in the US they have a single digit percentage of wealth.