Your point is that Hillary Clinton charges as much as others, so she's no different. The problem is that "others" are actually a bunch of crooks, such as her husband, Trump, assorted politicians who all can be accused of corruption just as she is.
No one in their right mind pays hundreds of thousands of dollars for a speech—any speech. I am a researcher and I have been invited to give lectures in universities abroad occasionally, and the rule is that at most they cover your travel costs. Nobel laureates may get command some extra treats, like conference fee exemption, presentation placement in plenary and a nice hotel, but not big payouts; besides, in that case the speaker actually has to prepare something, not just spout some truisms and rehash some old presentation.
If someone is being paid hundreds of thousands for a 5-minute speech, the speech is only a fig leaf to cover for the transfer of money; now if you are paying that money to Malala Yousafzai, it's obvious you really want to support her work for girls' education; if you pay that money to a politician that may help your company, that's corruption, be it for a specific service or as "environmental corruption", where it is normal to regularly pay politicians to be on their good side. It is obvious that even in the absence of either written or oral agreements, both parties realise that the speaker will be in debt to the organiser. That's corruption, be it Clinton I or II, Trump or whoever else.
I suggest you Americans to eject New York from the Union so you can get rid of both candidates and start over...