See, this is better; now that you've put forward an actual position we actually have something to discuss.
It's simply not possible for a politician's incentives to be completely aligned with the greater interests of the public they serve; for one thing, they already have a major vested interest in getting elected. The point of the laws, rules and norms around the issue is to manage and mitigate these issues; at a fundamental level, it's a mechanism design problem.
I think that some of them hoped to get access, and I think they hoped for it because donating money in order to have a greater chance to get access is a core part of how Washington operates.
Is this problematic? Definitely. However, pointing at foreigners donating to the Clinton Foundation (and not donating as much now that she has lost the election) as though this was itself the problem, rather than being symptomatic of the system as a whole, isn't going to achieve anything.
If you actually want to get somewhere with that issue you really need to think of it in the terms I mentioned earlier, as a fundamental problem of mechanism design in regards to how government operates.
There is definitely an argument to be made for illegality, but I can't say whether it would hold up; my guess is that it wouldn't. This would obviously change if anyone were to get evidence of quid pro quo corruption, which is what the Supreme Court seems to think is required.
However, whether or not it's illegal isn't even the real question here. Whether he intended it or not, the same gears that turn under the hood in order for people to get access to Washington politicians will turn for Trump. The difference here is that, whereas for the average US politician the way you ingratiate yourselves to them is large donations to the Super PACs and charitable causes they have ties to, for Donald Trump there is the much more obvious and direct (and less transparent) option of the Trump Organization. Granted, there's additional logistics involved in arranging a "donation" of sorts via such business dealings, but the fact that the benefits go directly to Trump is a huge plus for such an action.
So, all in all, it's a serious violation of previously established norms, and Donald Trump stands to be significantly enriched as a result, whether he intended it or not.