If it is very important for you to deny there's a semblance of pay-for-play corruption involving the Clinton Foundation, or that the 'lesser evil' isn't actually evil whatsoever, that's on your plate. I can't help you with that. But I agree it makes everything that much simpler.
I have no doubt that many of the major donors to the Clinton Foundation did so in the *hopes* of having some sway in the Clinton State Dept, and/or her presumptive future Presidency. However, I've seen no evidence that any policy was influenced by any donation. No
quid pro quo. No evidence that Hillary did anything wrong. For the Foundation to fail to disclose some donations may raise eyebrows. But note that in the US, it is very unusual for any charity to disclose donor names. For example, if I donate to Planned Parenthood, I might be subject to harassment from stupid individuals, so I'd expect any such donation to remain anonymous. That's how it almost always works.
From the US perspective, one should compare the issues claimed as "corruption" with business-as-usual in all legislatures. Essentially every sitting legislator depends on campaign contributions for re-election bids. Essentially every sitting legislator will take time to communicate with those contributors to discuss policy and legislative issues. They'll even go on the record advocating for donors in Executive Branch policy-making, under the label of "constituent service."
Note that campaign contributions get used, for example, to hire friends and family. Many personal trips and other expenses can be paid from campaign funds, if there's any plausible connection to re-election efforts. If the donations are to a PAC, the legislator gets to pocket the money upon retirement:
Senators and House Members Can Keep Campaign Funds on the Way Outhttp://abcnews.go.com/Business/campaign-finance-senators-house-members-campaign-funds-retire/story?id=10203316"There's a wide gap, if not a gulf, between what lawmakers can do with regular campaign money versus leadership PAC money," said Dave Levinthal, communications director for the Washington, D.C.-based CRP. "The question comes up: What can politicians do with the leftover PAC money, and the answer is pretty much whatever they want."
Campaign contributions thus are little more than delayed-receipt bribes, paid in advance of retirement. Nice way to build up a retirement nest egg without having to earn any of it.
If you ethically compare what happens in every legislative body with questions about the Clinton Foundation, the Foundation has not personally benefited the Clintons in any comparable way, It has, however, done excellent charitable work. The Foundation comes up very, very squeaky-clean from this perspective. Unlike Legislators, there's been no evidence of
quid pro quo.
When it comes to questions about the Clinton Foundation, there's simply "no
there there.