Article Alleges Donors Get Special White House Access, White House Pushes Back

The White House is pushing back against an article posted in today's Washington Times which says the President's top financial donors have received special access to the White House's facilities and even the President himself.

Fox's Mike Emanuel got the White House's response to the story (below that is the link to the Times article):

A White House aide calls The Washington Times piece "a stretch." "For example, the movie theater example cited in the story is a reference to the President watching the Super Bowl with Eric Whitaker and John Rogers - two friends for over twenty years."

Deputy White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer tells Fox:

"President Obama has opened the doors of the White House to hundreds of thousands of Americans since the administration began, and for the first time in history, records detailing who visited the White House will be made public on a regular basis.

"Many of the people mentioned in this story have been friends and associates of the Obamas for decades - including college roommates and family friends whose relationships predate and are separate from the President's career in public service. Given that nearly 4 million Americans donated to the campaign, it's no surprise that some who contributed have visited the White House as have grassroots organizers who didn't contribute financial support and people who actively opposed the President's candidacy.

"As part of an effort to open up events at the White House to thousands of Americans, we have at times provided tickets to events to the DNC, among many other organizations. Our understanding is that those tickets have in turn been distributed to grassroots supporters, contributors and elected officials. Contributing does not guarantee a ticket to the White House, nor does it prohibit the contributor from visiting.

"This Administration has across the board set the toughest ethics standards in history. As a result, we have reduced special interest influence over the policymaking process to promote merits-based decision-making. We believe that is due in no small part to our insistence on strict adherence to the rules - an approach we intend to continue."

Link to Washington Times Article.