That's a two-edged sword. A couple of examples --

1) Germans forced to march through an extermination camp because their cowardice in not stopping Hitler made them responsible for his actions.

2) Osama bin Laden justifying 9/11 by saying citizens are responsible for the actions of the US Govt.

Do you like either interpretation of your statement?

It works on both ends:

- Voters holding candidates responsible for where their support comes from, and whether that will influence their actions in office. - Consumers / collaborators / whatnot holding financiers responsible for what they are funding.

I, as a voter, do choose to take into account who is funding a candidate's campaign.

I, as a consumer / potential employee / human, take into account the speech funded by someone I'm intending to conduct a transaction with / form a friendship with, as evidence of their character.