While I agree with the thrust of where you're coming from, that number is much much higher than 30%. While pigeonholing the problem this way might make you feel good, it's really not productive.

The definition of amoral we're using here isn't someone being openly amoral, but rather people who think they're acting morally but actually rationalizing immoral things to themselves as moral. So it's not terribly surprising for this to be nearly everyone - that 30% is also acting directly against their own self-interest, yet rationalizing this as well!

I suspect part of the dynamic with the rich and powerful is that rationalization and general success are both reliant on intelligence - the same ability that helped them amass wealth/power has also assuaged their ego that they did so for some higher purpose. In addition to the obvious dynamic whereby sticking to your morals is generally less lucrative, of course.

They don't. You invented that argument from whole cloth.