That is basically the whole point of the matter. Regents Policy 2202 limits what can be done in terms of donor-related admission. So the various donor-related admission cases were apparently in violation of the rules.
Blum may be getting the attention because he is named, although it is questionable how much effect his attempt (a letter of recommendation outside the standard admissions process) actually was (but attempts to do things against the rules are still against the rules, even if not successful). But there appear to be plenty of worse cases involving unnamed donors’ influence.
Those here who support donor-related admissions need to consider that this is less about whether donor-related admissions is acceptable or desirable than whether those in and associated with the university should follow the university’s rules. If the rules are undesirable, they should lobby to change them, not cheat their way around them. Otherwise the message looks like “it is ok to cheat if you have money” (which is unfortunately a common viewpoint, given the amount stolen in white collar crime these days, among other things).