All this stuff in the news today about the Clinton Foundation donors getting special access to State Department officials while Clinton was Sec. of State . . . two points:
(1) Don't like it? Read Citizens' United's distinction between hard corruption (a quid-pro-quo bribe) and soft corruption (donors buying access and influence due to contributions). SCOTUS in Citizens' United effectively blessed soft corruption, holding that corporations and persons alike have a First Amendment right of free speech that makes any government attempt to limit donations to campaigns an unconstitutional infringement on that right. I know these were donations to a private foundation, and not a political campaign (and that makes a difference because foreigners can donate to the Foundation); but the principle is the same. Don't like soft money in politics influencing access and influence? Don't like Wall Street paying $500,000 per speech to someone in line to run for president? Then support campaign finance reform, fight to tighten up campaign finance loopholes, and vote for politicians who pledge to overturn Citizens United. I know the "she's doing nothing that all other politicians aren't doing" is a weak defense. I wish she didn't so openly put the Clinton Foundation out there so that this was an easy criticism to make. But she's just been playing in the same game she has played in since her husband was governor of Arkansas; she follows the rules; but in those 35 years the rules have only gotten more lax.
(2) It is the height of hypocrisy for Republicans to complain about soft-money influence in politics, when Trump openly brags about having using soft money donations to influence New York and New Jersey politicians from the 80's on in his real estate business. That's part of his shtick. And now Republicans express themselves shocked, SHOCKED, to find that soft money donations influenced state department access in the Clinton years.