>Sorry, why are their sources of funding relevant?

Because money is power, are you new?

You claimed that some unspecified "They" are attempting to force a socialist utopia/dystopia upon us, and that "They" are seeking to end private ownership because socialism. You seem to be unable to articulate who "They" are, from where "They" derive their power, or who is funding "Them".

>If they’re in power or have influence, it could largely be a grassroots movement and it doesn’t matter?

Grassroots movements quite simply do not have power or influence unless either:

1. they're well-funded, in which case see my previous point. Where does that money come from? or

2. they're supported by a significant majority of the public, in which case it makes no sense to refer to "They" in such a way as to insinuate there is a small minority of powerful figures forcing these issues upon an unwitting or unwilling public. If the movement enjoys broad popular support (unlikely!), then there is no conspiracy and you simply have a minority opinion. In that case, deal with it.