"Our goal is to make sure that we will meet the fund-raising requirements for this civic event after the most expensive presidential campaign in history," said Addie Whisenant, the inaugural committee spokeswoman. She added, “to ensure continued transparency, all names of donors will be posted to a regularly updated website,” according to the WaPo.
According to the Post, the committee also said that donation practices "are meant to be in keeping with the practices of public-service-oriented civic groups" and that "all donors would be vetted, and those not meeting guidelines would be rejected."
But, according to Politico, a Republican fundraiser accused Obama of "flip-flopping" regarding corporate donations: "Here is this guy that came to Washington, and said, 'I'm going to come and change the way Washington works. I'm going to bring a new, basically, working class to Washington [...] but now that I'm re-elected and I have nothing to worry about in the future, besides possibly my library, that quote-unquote moral compass doesn't exist," said the Republican fundraiser.
In addition, other critics also seized on the announcement "as yet another example of the unseemly role of money in politics." Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, said the practice "gives the appearance that corporate donors will get something in return for their money" — according to the Post
"it’s not a bribe” and "there’s no deal cut," he added. However, "they’re going to expect access and the ability to have their views heard more favorably than they otherwise would be. And that’s not how the system should work,” Weissman concluded.
Weigh In: Should Obama receive unlimited corporate donations to fund his second inauguration?