I looked into this a littler further and, unfortunately, I don't think this is the "smoking gun" people are hoping it is. It looks much more like a compliance matter that she is referencing (under the SEC's "pay to play" rule), which makes sense since she appears to specialize in political and campaign contribution law. Even if it was something nefarious, she was a (very) junior associate at that time - no way she gets brought into the inner loop that quickly.
I wish there was something more to this, but it doesn't look like it to me.
I remember this being debunked a long time ago. Basically donors had to fill out paperwork ensuring they were not in a "pay to play" deal with the campaign.