You're still missing the point, Pete. I'm not talking about accepting money in general. I'm asking about the specific rules for elections.
I'm not missing your point; I just think you are wrong. I *am* talking about politicians accepting bribes in general, and I've explained why it's wrong, and you know very well that it's wrong, regardless of whether there's an election going on. Whether or not there's an election going on has nothing to do with whether taking a bribe is *wrong.*
But there is nothing wrong with giving money to a campaign. That is not considered a "bribe." But it
is illegal for a foreign person or government to give money to a campaign. So bribes in general do not apply to this conversation.
If you believe that foreign campaign contributions are OK, then say so. But you've brought up Clinton receiving money from China and the possibility there was some quid pro quo involved with it. I see the possibility that there was some quid pro quo involved with the information from the Russian government. Why is one disturbing but not the other?

I decline your request that I explain why it's wrong to specifically take money during an election, because the election has nothing to do with the wrongness as I perceive it. If you think that accepting INFORMATION from a foreign government during an election is "wrong" (as opposed to illegal) that's your burden of proof if you want to convince us that you actually believe it, let alone that we should believe it.
But I have outlined why I think getting information from a foreign government is wrong. For the same reason I see getting money from a foreign person or government is wrong: because it provides undue influence by the foreign person or government who's fate is not tied to our country's.
You also seem to think that information cannot be valuable. You said, "If you offer a cop information in exchange for leniency, I have never heard anyone call that a bribe or undue influence."
If the information was a legal stock tip from a broker that could make the cop a lot of money, and he got leniency, would you still say it was not a bribe or undue influence?

The information Trump, Jr. was expecting was something he believed would help win the election. He believed it would be valuable. If money is valuable, and information is valuable, then why is one illegal and other is not?
If you think that what Trump did was illegal, and that the law as you want to apply it is constitutional, then take your case to court. Seems to me that if y'all had the law on your sides on this one you wouldn't be stirring up lynch mobs.
The problem is that we still don't know what information was offered, and under what terms. (I assume no one still believes that the Russians needed that group of people just to talk about adoptions, right?

) Perhaps nothing of substance was offered, or perhaps it was declined. The story keeps changing, and I'm sure we haven't heard the last version yet. But until we have evidence of exactly what happened, there is no court case.
But it stinks to high heaven. He went in there, with company, to hear what they had to offer. Did he really expect there would be no strings attached? Did he think it was appropriate to convey whatever offer it was to his father?
Riddle me this: say Israel sidles up to Secretary Clinton during the election and says -- pst -- our intelligence confirms that your opponent has a plan to assassinate you. Has she violated election ethics, based on the "value" of the information from a foreign power?
If you are right on your interpretation of the law, then it's too stupid to be constitutional.
Obviously taking, or even seeking, information of a possible crime against you or someone else is not trying to get an advantage in an election, even if it is from some foreign power. So any rule about the ethics of info from a foreigner that makes that illegal is stupid.
But do you really want to make a blanket rule that
no secret information from a foreign power can be considered illegal? Especially when it may come with strings attached?
The information was not advertised as something that would prevent a crime. It was advertised as something that would help Trump win the election. If giving money to help Trump win is illegal and unethical, then why is giving information to help Trump win is perfectly ethical?
Information is an odd thing. If it is spread about, and well known, it has only a small value to the bearer. But if it is not well-known, or only know to a few people, then it can be extremely valuable. And worth quid pro quo.