"Conspiracy" doesn't seem to fit in the case of people who are opposed in word & deed to the gov't's activities but who are coerced into providing money for them.  Calif. jury instructions:

"A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a wrongful act.  Such an agreement may be made orally or in writing or implied by the conduct of the parties."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28civil%29#California_.22Plain_Language.22_jury_instructions_on_conspiracy:_essential_factual_elements

"You are instructed that the common design is the essence of the charge, and while it is necessary, in order to establish a conspiracy, to prove a combination of two or more persons, by concerted action, to accomplish the criminal or unlawful purpose, it is not necessary to constitute a conspiracy that two or more persons should meet together, and enter into an explicit or formal agreement for an unlawful scheme, or that they should directly, by words or in writing, state what the unlawful scheme was to be, and the detail of the plans or means by which the unlawful combination was to be made effective. It is sufficient if two or more persons, in any manner, or through any contrivance, positively or tacitly come to a mutual understanding to accomplish a common and unlawful design. In other words, where an unlawful end is sought to be effected, and two or more persons, actuated by the common purpose of accomplishing that end, work together, in any way in furtherance of the unlawful scheme, every one of said persons becomes a member of the conspiracy, although the part he was to take therein was a subordinate one, or was to be executed at a remote distance from the other conspirators."      http://books.google.com/books?id=yf4PAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1487&dq=%22protection+money%22&lr=&as_brr=1&ei=sF7sR-n0O42AsgPNhtnCBg#PPA2075,M1

"I instruct you that, where several persons conspire or combine together to commit any unlawful act, each is criminally responsible for the acts of his associates or confederates committed in furtherance of any prosecution of the common design for which they combine. In contemplation of law, the act of one is the act of all. Each is responsible for everything done by his confederates, which follows incidentally in the execution of the common design as one of its probable and natural consequences, even though it was not intended as a part of the original design or common plan." [same book, p. 2078]

Oklahoma:

"A combination or common design or object may be regarded as proved if the jury believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the parties charged were actually pursuing, in concert, the unlawful object stated in the information, whether acting separately or together, by common or different means, provided all were leading to the same unlawful result, and if two or more persons are moved and influenced by a common intent and purpose to feloniously assault another with a deadly weapon and to take his life or to commit such felony upon such person, then the law says that under such circumstances the act of one is the act of all assailants and th shot of one is the shot of all; they are all responsible, under such circumstances, for the acts of each other." [same book]

more:

"The court instructs the jury as a matter of law that all who take part in a conspiracy after it is formed and while it is in execution, and all who, with the knowledge of the facts, concur in the facts originally formed and aid in executing them, are fellow conspirators  Their concurrence, without proof of an agreement to concur, is conclusive against them. They commit the offense when  they become partners to the transaction or further the original plan." [same book, 2078]

"The court instructs the jury that, in order to constitute the crime of conspiracy, there must be certainty to a common intent and the object to be accomplished must be an evil one, or it is to be accomplished by evil means. It is not enough, therefore, to show that the defendants on trial may have had a common object to succeed in their strike, such as is common for men on strike to have, and that some one else indicted with them attempted to accomplish that object by evil means. Before any one of these defendants can be found guilty, it must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that he agreed with such other person, if you believe from the evidence that there was such a person, to accomplish such object by such evil means." [same book 2081]

See also: legal complicity, culpability, accessory