Is the White House for Sale?

(CBS)  As Democrats prime their fundraising machine for 2010 midterm elections, their biggest rainmaker is the man in the White House. Mega donors are scoring invitations to exclusive White House affairs, access to senior officials - even the executive office bowling alley, reports CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, in partnership with the Washington Times.

The practice is controversial, but not unusual. Presidents Clinton and Bush offered big donors perks and special invitations.

Obama supporter Lanny Davis says the president has little choice but to continue business as usual - even though Obama as candidate implied things would be different.

"When it comes to fundraising I never heard Barack Obama say 'I believe in unilateral disarmament.' So long as Republicans are raising money we have to raise money, and we won the White House, we ought to take advantage of that," Davis said.

Watch Attkisson's interview with Davis

Some donors are longtime friends of Mr. Obama's. His buddies Eric Whitaker ($8,550) and Marty Nesbitt ($50K) watched the Super Bowl at the White House movie theatre.

Hassan Chandoo (at least $100K), Wahid Hamid (at least $100K) and Lutfi Hassan (at least $50K) were invited to a White House banquet.

For others, there's no longstanding friendship that binds them, just the money they've brought in as giant fundraisers called "bundlers."

Robert Wolf of banking giant UBS golfed with the president at Martha's Vineyard in August. He raised at least $500,000.

Dozens of bundlers were invited to a lavish St. Patrick's Day reception, 17 to the president's Wall Street speech.

Several bundlers, who didn't wish to be named, describe invitations to use the executive office bowling alley with family and friends, and a surprise birthday visit to the White House to see the president.

The White House says there's no correlation between donations and White House access.

White House Defends Perks for Top Donors

"Hundreds of thousands of people have visited this White House since the president came in," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said. "And I think the president has returned to a stance of transparency in ethics that hasn't been matched by any other White House."

But documents from the DNC, the fundraising arm of the Democratic party, spell out exactly what the deepest pockets can buy.

Read the First DNC Document
Read the Second DNC Document

Those who raise "$300,000 before the 2010 midterm elections" get quarterly meetings with "senior members of the Obama Administration... twice-monthly conference calls... (and) contribute to shaping policy agendas." In other words, the kind of access most Americans can only dream of.

We showed the documents to former chairman of the Federal Elections Commission Scott Thomas.

"It's okay to have a big bash and people can have a nice piece of rubber chicken but where you actually start drawing people in who have given the money to the policy discussions - I think there ought to be some way to draw a line there," Thomas said.

Watch Attkisson's interview with Thomas

Critics may throw stones, but don't look for either party to voluntarily stop use of what many call the biggest fundraising advantage available - the White House.

Watch Attkisson's interview with Brad Woodhouse, DNC Communications Director:

Watch CBS News Videos Online

[Virgil-1]

No,but the American people have been sold down the river.Some don't
realize it at the moment.

[ConstantineXIII]

So much for "change". Remember also how Obama said he wouldn't support earmarks(and then the very first bill he proposed was chock full of earmarks) And how Obama said he wouldn't have any lobbyists?
Look also at some of his "czars"(that term sounds very democratic and responsive to the people doesn't it?). Van Jones, who said 9/11 was an inside job? Anita Dunn, his communications director who says Mao Tse Tung is one of her "favorite philosophers"?

[TJphoto]

Politicians take money from special interests, they generally give something back at our expense. Our elected leaders know that if they do not do what they want, they will give the money to the next person who will run against them. It's a vicious cycle that cannot be broken unless we the Electorate demand that money be removed completely. First step, vote every single member of the house out of office and replace them with the one who has the least amount of cash. Send the message!

[msimamaji]

It's no small wonder that the GOP is bringing up this story. Let's look at health care reform. Check out Center for Responsive Politics, and you'll find every single GOP Congressman, Joe Wilson, Mitch McConnell, Olympia Snowe, Orrin Hatch, Jim DeMint, John McCain get bribery money from health insurance companies and Big Pharma. So do Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh, Blanche Lincoln - so Bi-Partisan is BUY-Partisan.
And you are footing the bill. Yes, Obama did invite some people to the White House, including some big time donors.
But is this as bad as letting babies in Washington DC die? Yes, if you check the stats, the infant mortality rate of Washington DC is 3 times as high a the infant mortality rate of Sweden or France.* So while Congressmen are taking bribes from lobbyists to defeat health care reform, babies are dying. It's too bad that babies cannot make campaign contributions.
Yes I agree that money and politics don't mix. But as long as we have a gullible, illiterate public which believes every hate and smear campaign that comes out of CNN and FOX news, the good guys have to raise money just to keep the record straight. (Sources: Statesmaster.com and the 2009 Fact Book.)

[natdef_1]

Ms Imam -- what a ridiculous non sequitur!

Typical liberal pablum to try to put "dying babies" on the agenda. You're probably pro-abortion too, right?

[nowhiningallowed]

Of course the WH is for sale. This is the same thing that happened with Clinton and the media was all over him for doing so. Now, Obama is doing the exact same thing and there's a deafening hush in today's pandering media not daring to criticize the president. Wonder why?

[natdef_1]

Rafter -- I fail to see how your point excludes Obama from guilt on this matter. Just because influence peddling in DC seems to be the norm, does that make it ok for Obama, who promised that he was bringing "change?"

[AOCGUY]

natdef - I don't think rafter was excusing the Obama WH, but whiner insinuated that this was something unique to democratic adminstrations which is untrue. Until we demand that elected officials are banned from using the offices for fund raising this will continue as it has under all previous adminsitrations, probably as far back as Washington.

[democracy1]

The party of No can't do anything for the American people, yet they have the time and energy to focus on such a nonissue as this?!

[nextgenman09]

What I find hilarious is that the republitards see no hypocrisy in making this claim.

[natdef_1]

Obama campaigned specifically on the PROMISE that HE was going to do things DIFFERENTLY. In case you weren't paying attention to the THOUSANDS of speeches he gave, he promised CEASELESSLY that he was going to eliminate the special interests, and open his doors to "opposing voices." None of that has happened -- in fact, it has been quite the opposite...partisan attempts to silence and discredit critics along with back-room deal-making.

That is not just hypocrisy -- it is a flagrant LIE. Rather than become outraged, however, you seem not to be bothered by it. "After all, Bush spit in my eye for 8 years, so it's ok if Obama does it too!"

What sense does that make???

[timdgrim]

At least this White House doesn't have a sign with 'Owned by Halliburton and Big Oil' on the front lawn like Cheney and his puppet did the last 8 years.

[natdef_1]

You're right -- they're hiding the sign. Good point. Nice to know we have deceptive corruption in the WH, not just plain old corruption.

[MICdunson]

Who should he invite to the White House if not the people who helped him? People who didn?t contribute to his campaign or people who worked against his campaign, I don?t think so.

[nocatnowaco]

if it is a continued business as usual, never say to bring changes. or is it just one of the hopes? hopes, materialised or not, when missing an e which means for everyone will become hops: were those donors invited for a white house hops party? what beers were served? have they raised enough funds to get the white house painted blue? every working americans want to have transparency beer: no taxes evasions and how our taxes $$$ are well effectively spent.

[tmittelstaed]

Hellloooo! He still has to get reelected and he won't be able to do this if he makes policy decisions that the majority of Americans don't like. The last occupant of the White House tried that and his party was tossed out of power. Obama isn't stupid.

I'll tell you what this is really all about. People like Robert Wolf of UBS aren't paying their half-million bucks because that allows them to shape policy. They know that policy is going to be shaped that they won't like despite their contributions. They are paying that money because all the REST of you fools THINK that this gives them some pull with Obama. You are all too poor to boot-lick Obama but by gawd you will line up to boot-lick someone like Robert Wolf who you THINK has some pull with Obama.

Robert Wolf isn't paying that money to buy Obama - he's paying that money to buy YOU. And he's succeeding because your all so foolish that you believe he actually bought some access to power, and you will now listen to him. When in reality, he has no more pull with Obama than anyone else does.