Oct 28, 2009 5:00pm

White House Faces Questions on Big Donor Maintenance Programs

The White House found itself on the defensive Wednesday as spokesman Robert Gibbs tried to answer questions about a Washington Times investigation indicating that this White House – like those before it – rewarded big Democratic donors with access to the White House and its powerful players.

“During his first nine months in office, President Obama has quietly rewarded scores of top Democratic donors with VIP access to the White House, private briefings with administration advisers and invitations to important speeches and town-hall meetings,” wrote Matthew Mosk.  With internal Democratic National Committee documents obtained by The Washington Times, Mosk wrote that high-dollar fundraisers were “promised access to senior White House officials in exchange for pledges to donate $30,400 personally or to bundle $300,000 in contributions ahead of the 2010 midterm elections.”

The document offers the most generous donors membership in the DNC's National Finance Committee or the National Advisory Board.

"Together with the National Finance Committee, the National Advisory Board meets four times throughout the year in Washington, D.C. to discuss current issues, policies, and strategies," one of the documents says. "They have an opportunity to meet senior members of the Obama administration and senior members of Congress, and to hear from political analysts and policy experts."

One donor was given a birthday visit to the Oval Office. UBS Americas CEO Robert Wolf, the president’s top New York City “bundler” – a contributor who raises hundreds of thousands of dollars – golfed with him at Martha's Vineyard vacation in August. White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina gave briefings on health care reform to top donors in San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Other big Democratic donors celebrated St. Patrick’s Day, Cinco de Mayo, and the 4th of July at the White House; the White House has not released the names of those who visited for those celebrations at the White House.

“It’s just the same as everybody else,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW. The story, she said, is “not suggesting a quid pro quo – it didn’t say Mr. Obama is offering regulatory help for donors. It says donors are getting meetings with White House insiders to tell them what’s going on. That’s not any different from what happens in Congress, where big donors get briefings with Barney Frank, or Barbara Boxer. Top donors always get access to politicians.”

Every White House has rewarded its wealthiest contributors with various insider access and perks. Some of Mr. Obama’s more idealistic supporters may have been under the impression that President Obama wouldn’t be eager to engage in such activities, which good government groups argue tarnished both the Clinton and Bush White Houses.

“They might have expected differently,  but we saw it from day one when we saw who the ambassadors were,” Sloan said. For the most part, Sloan said, President Obama’s ambassador picks were big donors.

"We cannot let the rules of the game continue to be rigged against ordinary Americans,” President Obama said last June. “We need a President who will look out for the interests of hardworking families, not just their big campaign donors and corporate allies."

During the Democratic primaries, after Clinton donor David Geffen became a support of Obama’s, Gibbs invoked some of the Clinton-era controversies involving fundraising, saying, "It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln bedroom.” Beyond obvious issues over what the word “ironic” means, the statement was clearly meant to invoke some of the donor maintenance controversies from the Clinton era.

This White House emphasizes that some of the donors are also the president’s friends. Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, who attended a Ramadan banquet at the White House, each raised between $100,000 and $200,000 for the president. They were also college roommates of Mr. Obama’s. Three donors who watched a movie with the president at the White House movie theater, Eric Whittaker, Marty Nesbitt and John Rogers, are also friends.

At the press briefing today, a reporter asked, “Obviously, I know other White Houses, Democrats, Republicans have done things like this, but the president last year promised to clean this up.  What — what went wrong?”
              
Gibbs said, “Well, I think understanding that what this president has done is institute the very toughest ethics and transparency rules of any administration in history.  We're the first administration in
history that will soon provide a list of each and every person that visits the White House, something that's never been done before.  The Democratic National Committee does not accept contributions
from registered federal lobbyists or political action committees and hasn't done so since President Obama became the party's nominee last year. “

Gibbs said that “contributing doesn't guarantee a visit to the White House, nor does it preclude it.” He added that “hundreds of thousands of people have visited this White House since the president came in.  And I think the president has returned to a stance of transparency in ethics that — that hasn't been matched by any other White House.”

Last month the White House announced it had arrived at a legal agreement – settling lawsuits brought by the good-government group CREW – under which it would release the names of all visitors to the White House from September 15 on.  The policy will begin at the end of December, and will not be retroactive for guests before September 15. 

“This is something, again, that for the first time in any administration at any point in our history we've undertaken, releasing publicly those names.” Gibbs said, also noting that the DNC as opposed to the RNC does not accept money from political action committees.

Gibbs was asked about the fact that the DNC documents say those who raise $300,000 before the 2010 midterm election get quarterly meetings with senior members of the Obama administration.
               
“ I'd point you to the DNC on that,” Gibbs said.

“But they're with White House officials,” the reporter responded.
               
“I'd point you to the DNC,” Gibbs said again.

Another reporter asked why the White House doesn’t set a policy that says campaign bundlers and donors will have no more access to the White House campus for senior administration officials than the ordinary American.

Gibbs responded that “the president believes strongly in transparency, that people can determine whether who's here and why they're here and for what course of business.  The transparency in that way is the best policy.  There are people that gave money that the president has been personal friends with since they went to school.  I don't think it makes a lot of sense to preclude somebody like that from coming here simply because they gave money.  David Axelrod couldn't work here, if that were the case.  He's a donor.”

Sloan said the “real problem is our campaign finance system. If we want to change it we need to change that politicians need the money. Then we’ll see politicians spending less time currying favors with large donors.

– jpt

 

User Comments

The only thing outrageous about this would be any Democrat or other supporter of Obama that still tries to defend him as someone different or above the fray or a change candidate. Obama is just another lousy politician like the majority of them. With his hand out for money, making promises never kept, and putting on different speaking cadances and drawls for different audiences. He was never change, just more of the same old lousy product we’ve been sold for the past twenty years.

Posted by: Aaron | October 28, 2009, 5:24 pm 5:24 pm

But this is Hope’n'Change™ corruption. It’s okay.

Posted by: mesquito | October 28, 2009, 5:28 pm 5:28 pm

Drain the swamp. Huh Nancy.

Posted by: jamescbuilder | October 28, 2009, 5:37 pm 5:37 pm

And what did Obama say about this sort of thing while he was running? The truth:
“As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama acknowledged he suffered “from the same original sin of all politicians, which is we’ve got to raise money,” but said that he would fight against donor influence if sent to the White House.
“The argument is not that I’m pristine, because I’m swimming in the same muddy water,” Mr. Obama said during a campaign appearance. “The argument is that I know it’s muddy, and I want to clean it up.”
Is he fighting against donor influence? He has banned lobbyist money and banned PAC money. Add in his agreement to release visitor lists, and the based on reality the answer is yes. He’s doing more than any modern administration we’ve seen. Yeah that’s a low bar, but I’ll take better over more of the same any day.

Posted by: jhw539 | October 28, 2009, 5:37 pm 5:37 pm

“Is he fighting against donor influence? He has banned lobbyist money and banned PAC money. Add in his agreement to release visitor lists, and the based on reality the answer is yes. He’s doing more than any modern administration we’ve seen. Yeah that’s a low bar, but I’ll take better over more of the same any day.”
Kind of sad the bar is that low isn’t it?

Posted by: Ryan C | October 28, 2009, 5:42 pm 5:42 pm

He has banned lobbyist money
Posted by: jhw539 | Oct 28, 2009 5:37:37 PM
Money? Maybe. Lobbyists? No.
JANUARY, 2009 – President Obama promised during his campaign that lobbyists “won’t find a job in my White House.” So far, though, at least a dozen former lobbyists have found top jobs in his administration.
Add in his agreement to release visitor lists
Posted by: jhw539 | Oct 28, 2009 5:37:37 PM
SEPTEMBER 2009 – It won’t be instantaneous. The policy, which goes into effect on Sept. 15, will allow the release of visitor logs and access information electronically captured by the Secret Service at least 90 days after the fact—meaning we won’t get to see the first list of names until roughly December.
There will also be limits on what we will see. The names of personal guests of the Obamas won’t be released—something the Bush White House, for all its stonewalling on visitor lists, occasionally did.
The White House also won’t disclose people visiting for what administration officials describe as “sensitive meetings”—though according to the statement explaining the policy, it will tell us when it’s holding back such information and release it at a later time when the information is not “sensitive.”

Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | October 28, 2009, 5:51 pm 5:51 pm

Not to worry.
MSNBC, NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS (and their ilk) will refuse to acknowledge and it will just disappear.

Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | October 28, 2009, 5:55 pm 5:55 pm

“acknowledge” was a poor choice as Jake at least acknowledged. But I think you get my intention.

Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | October 28, 2009, 5:59 pm 5:59 pm

Jake! This the Washington Times we’re talking about? One of the Republican Parties Weapons of Mass Distraction. Who were the visitors during the Bush Admin.?? You don’t know because they wouldn’t even let anyone look at them, “executive privilege” you know. Ask Tom Delay how to run a “pay to play” scheme.
This is such crap, you should know better than to parrot Murdoch/Moonie press distortions!

Posted by: thebob.bob | October 28, 2009, 6:00 pm 6:00 pm

it’s not as if he’s any worse than past presidents, but gibbs is absurd, with all his “most transparent administration” talk. what does that even mean? doesn’t every president promise that? again, it’s not as if obama’s any worse than others, but he really does have some star-gazing followers in his camp. the dude is just another politician, when will these people figure that out?

Posted by: davidfrat21 | October 28, 2009, 6:05 pm 6:05 pm

lmao at the Obama Bootlickers….

Posted by: mickey maoist | October 28, 2009, 6:25 pm 6:25 pm

“lmao at the Obama Bootlickers….”
___________________________________
More juvenile name calling as intelligent political discussion.

Posted by: tierra | October 28, 2009, 6:46 pm 6:46 pm

Posted by: mickey maoist | Oct 28, 2009 6:25:46 PM
Fun. I can trash talk too. Let’s pretend we’re tweens on twitter:
OMG!!! Roflmao (and throwing up in my mouth a little) at the tea buggers, Glenn Beck zombies, Cheneyesque wingnut vampires and their cutesy-pie rodent-inspired monikers

Posted by: Olivia | October 28, 2009, 6:51 pm 6:51 pm

“acknowledge” was a poor choice as Jake at least acknowledged. But I think you get my intention.”
Your intention?
Was it to look like a fool criticizing a story not being covered by ABC on their blog covering the story?

Posted by: Ryan C | October 28, 2009, 6:57 pm 6:57 pm

These jokers make the Clintons look respectable in comparison with the use of the White House for cash scam.
“Yeah, but Bush!…”

Posted by: A. Lincoln | October 28, 2009, 7:31 pm 7:31 pm

.. making promises never kept,
Posted by: Aaron
don’t you think you should at least consider a full term in office before you arrive at the ‘never kept promises’ level….it’s not even been a full year…
after 4 (or 8) years one can make a judgment about the efficacy of any administration,

Posted by: Jackson Pollack | October 28, 2009, 7:39 pm 7:39 pm

It’s just the way it works in Washington. What’s discusting is the psuedo high ground proclaimed by the administration this time around.

Posted by: LongT | October 28, 2009, 7:52 pm 7:52 pm

Surely we dont have to wait 4 or even 8 years for a campain promise to be kept.

Posted by: earl | October 28, 2009, 7:53 pm 7:53 pm

“Surely we dont have to wait 4 or even 8 years for a campain promise to be kept.”
____________________________________
It’s a 4-year term. Surely you don’t expect the campaign promises to be delivered in the first 9 months?

Posted by: tierra | October 28, 2009, 8:43 pm 8:43 pm

Not long ago, one might have thought it would take several years of Obanomics to bring the US youth unemployment rate up to the level of the European welfare states.
One would have been wrong. In this hapless fool’s first year we are already there, at over 18%.
It won’t be going down anytime soon. You wanted this guy; you got him.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | October 28, 2009, 9:55 pm 9:55 pm

Obama is a crook, but the idiot bots just can’t seem to grasp it so they name call those that state the truth and try to distract by name calling others that have nothing to do with the issue like Cheney. Completely pathetic.

Posted by: VeryPainfulTruth | October 28, 2009, 9:57 pm 9:57 pm

Rasmussen:
Overall, 48% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. Fifty-two percent (52%) disapprove.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | October 28, 2009, 10:44 pm 10:44 pm

Obscurity through the distribution, under the premise of transparency, of massive visitor logs that list all visitors to the WH without stating the visit purpose. To sort out the details one would have to research each name and guess the purpose. Since the majority of this type of work is done by the media and they are biased for the administration, it most likely will never be done. HIde in plain sight by overloading the people with information.

Posted by: Keith | October 28, 2009, 10:44 pm 10:44 pm

Change only a yokel could believe in:
KABUL, Afghanistan — Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of the Afghan president and a suspected player in the country’s booming illegal opium trade, gets regular payments from the Central Intelligence Agency, and has for much of the past eight years, according to current and former American officials.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | October 28, 2009, 11:00 pm 11:00 pm

“Not long ago, one might have thought it would take several years of Obanomics to bring the US youth unemployment rate up to the level of the European welfare states.”
_____________________________________
Bush left office with the economy in virtual free-fall collapse, the stock market in the tank and the economy hemorrhaging 700,000 jobs a month . . . but let’s just blame in all on Obama shall we. Let’s just pretend its Obama’s fault.
Talk about being brainwashed.

Posted by: tierra | October 29, 2009, 12:33 am 12:33 am

Great job as always Ryan attacking an honest mistake instead of responding to my comments. You’re as much of an empty suit as your hero.

Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | October 29, 2009, 12:53 am 12:53 am

Get back to me Ryan when the networks mention this on the nightly news…

Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | October 29, 2009, 12:57 am 12:57 am

AP reports: “Economy grows at 3.5 percent pace in 3Q, best in 2 years…”

Posted by: Alyson | October 29, 2009, 9:42 am 9:42 am

AP reports: “Economy grows at 3.5 percent pace in 3Q, best in 2 years…”
Posted by: Alyson | Oct 29, 2009 9:42:02 AM
It’s a circus act – courtesy of those of us who pay taxes. It’s not a true gauge of the GDP but was “pumped” up by government programs.
Watch what happens in the 4th quarter. Foreclosures are starting to creep into states that have been up to this point relatively stable such as Idaho and Utah.
And continuing the AP story…
“Armed with cash from government support programs, consumers led the rebound in the third quarter, snapping up cars and homes.
“Consumer spending on big-ticket manufactured goods soared at an annualized rate of 22.3 percent in the third quarter, the most since the end of 2001. The jump largely reflected car purchases spurred by the government’s Cash for Clunkers program that offered a rebate of up to $4,500 to buy new cars and trade in old gas guzzlers.
“The housing market also turned a corner in the summer. Spending on housing projects jumped at an annualized pace of 23.4 percent, the largest jump since 1986. It was the first time since the end of 2005 that spending on housing was positive.
“The government’s $8,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers supported the housing rebound.”

Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | October 29, 2009, 10:11 am 10:11 am

Nobama is just like that big ballon which floated across eastern Colorado recently. When the rescuers reached it they found it was empty. Thats Nobama, he is really an empty suit but many of his brain dead followers deny this. He is proving every day that he is way out of his league. He made a good community organizer for ACORN in Chicago but now he doesn’t meet his job description at all. But how do we get rid of him?

Posted by: Colorado | October 29, 2009, 10:30 am 10:30 am

I like how Ezra Klein put it, under the heading of good news for poeple who like good news.
Quote–
“Knock knock.”
“Who’s there?”
“Quarterly GDP.”
“Sigh. Quarterly GDP who?”
“Quarterly GDP growth, yo! I’m back!”
End quote.
For the people who don’t particularly like good news, oh well.

Posted by: Alyson | October 29, 2009, 12:57 pm 12:57 pm

Bush left office with the economy in virtual free-fall collapse, the stock market in the tank and the economy hemorrhaging 700,000 jobs a month . . . but let’s just blame in all on Obama shall we. Let’s just pretend its Obama’s fault.
Talk about being brainwashed.
Posted by: tierra |
Let’s just pretend it’s Bush’s fault.

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | October 29, 2009, 1:32 pm 1:32 pm

For the people who don’t particularly like good news, oh well.
Posted by: Alyson | Oct 29, 2009 12:57:30 PM
For the people who don’t particularly like propaganda disguised as good news based on false data from artificially promoting sales through government programs paid for by those of us who actually pay taxes.

Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | October 29, 2009, 1:52 pm 1:52 pm

Today Obama is taking credit but has seemingly forgotten that TARP was passed and the first half spent by Bush. It’s true – the winners do get to write history – or in this case rewrite it.

Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | October 29, 2009, 1:55 pm 1:55 pm

tierra: “Bush left office with the economy in virtual free-fall collapse . . . but let’s just blame in all on Obama shall we. Let’s just pretend its Obama’s fault. Talk about being brainwashed.”
Aren’t you doing the same thing? If I recall, it was Obama and his Democrat party that held Congress since January of 2007. Do you maybe want to re-think your position? “Talk about being brainwashed!”

Posted by: Anonymous | October 29, 2009, 4:57 pm 4:57 pm

Visualize Whirled Peas: “For the people who don’t particularly like propaganda disguised as good news based on false data from artificially promoting sales through government programs paid for by those of us who actually pay taxes.”
Exactly, the growth isn’t real when it’s just the government redistributing the wealth. Any dufus can spend other people’s money. Real growth happens when the private sector creates products, services, and jobs, not when the government spends the private sector’s money.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 29, 2009, 5:21 pm 5:21 pm

::::yawn:::::
So its politics as usual with this administration? OH NO, not that.
The only thing that matters here is that this President sold the American public on “change you can believe in” as if he was going to do this whole thing differently. He yammered on about transparency and changing the dynamic in the way business is done in Washington. (His version of the “of the people” argument)He is so much of the same ol’ same ol’ it is comical.
It doesn’t offend me that he continues the tradition of cronyism and political payback with access and favors. I am not sure it is a bad thing. The thing that offends me is that he was so dead set against it during the campaign and now he is back peddling with a bunch of double talk and political spin.
Its not the guys like me that are watching; its the guys that he sold this idealism to that matter here – they are watching and their vote is why you took the title in the first place.

Posted by: Lone Star Rules | October 30, 2009, 8:19 am 8:19 am

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.