By the rules you're given.

I'd give more context but I think it is implied without being express.

That is an excuse, not an answer.
Sorry, you cannot have it both ways. The logic pretzel it takes to get to that spot, where it's ok and makes sense, is significant.
Logically speaking, the argument being made, is: "I think unlimited corporate money and dark money is not good for government officials. I will make sure people cannot do it because it's bad. I have to keep doing it for right now though. I'll fix it later though, really."

It's hard to believe and or take serious.

Want an example have how this money corrupts? You have it.

I understand what you mean, in theory same thing could be said for Super-Delegates with Bernie.

However, the big difference is Super-Delegates change position based on the will of the people in their state and even then. Not always.

I'm just wondering how far will she play this game. Based on why corporations and lobbyist give large amounts of money to politicians, there's usually an agenda they want that candidate to play out.

The question is.. Is she playing them or us, the people. For some reason, I don't think people who have a lot of money are stupid and would give it out for no reason unless it's a sure bet they get what they want.

That's all.