No, this is how low info conspiratorial voters think it works, because their worldview is everything is 1. a conspiracy 2. involves "money" in some basic way they can easily imagine.
Insider knowledge doesn't reliably beat passive investing and why would politicians even have it? You can see what they're voting for by watching CSPAN.
There are many discussions long before you see anything on C-SPAN, and some are top secret.
I'm sure they are in some discussions, I'm sure both staffers and elected officials are in others, and I'm sure elected officials have some without their staff.
> A "top secret business discussion" in Washington, are you kidding me?
There are those, of course; the incredulity you typed isn't evidence otherwise. But I was referring to top secret discussions that affect businesses; for example, the armed services committees have secret meetings about things that greatly affect companies in the defense industry.
There's no conspiracy in acknowledging that politicians sometimes use their influence for personal gain, when it's convenient. That's just human nature.
One thing that happens if you actually watch election results here is 1. the left candidates have more money and 2. it doesn't help.