I would disagree but in reality, the voters will decide.

You do understand that the original complaint against Christy was that she was taking a percentage of all the money raised by her private pay to play functions.  When that became untenable, her "cut" merely became a "direct payment", and when that became untenable, her direct payment simply became "covering my expenses".

Contrary to your opinion, I myself am not allowed to take a second job in the same industry in which I am employed, out of caution for the perceived conflict of interests that are sure to arise, and I have to doubt that any politician should be even more wary of such perceived conflict of interests; real or not. 

Christy, more than anyone, seems to be acting the part of the guilty politician as her handlers try a variety of damage control manoeuvres designed to remove her from her obvious conflicts yet while still paying her.

Simply, Christy doesn't pass the smell test.