The founder of Kids Company has denied a claim she was able to "mesmerise" the Prime Minister and senior politicians in order to secure funding for the collapsed charity.
The youth organisation folded amid a storm of controversy last August - just days after receiving a £3 million government grant in a final bid to keep it afloat.
Camila Batmanghelidjh said she presented ministers with "robust" arguments and expected them to make their own decisions.
And she told the BBC she had been the victim of malicious media attacks and "very racist" comments in the wake of the charity's demise.
She was responding to a report by the Commons public administration and constitutional affairs committee earlier this month which criticised the relationship between the Government and Ms Batmanghelidjh.
The report said: "Ms Batmanghelidjh and Kids Company appeared to captivate some of the most senior political figures in the land, by the force of the chief executive's personality as much as by the spin and profile she generated for the charity. As a consequence, objective judgments about Kids Company were set aside."
It added the charity received more than £42 million of Whitehall funding between 1996 and 2015, thanks in some part to Ms Batmanghelidjh winning "unique, privileged and significant access to senior ministers and prime minsters".
But speaking to BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour, Ms Batmanghelidjh said: "I think that it's sad that people think in this day and age that you can mesmerise people.
"I present arguments that I hope are robust, and people that I deal with, I hope, have the intelligence to scrutinise my arguments and make their own decisions.
"I would put the question to you another way - if I was capable of mesmerising the prime minister of this country, who have you voted for? Because that would be very dangerous."
David Cameron defended his support for Kids Company at the height of the furore, saying he had been right to give the charity "one more go" to continue doing "very good and important work".
In the committee report, MPs called for a "radical change" in charity regulation to prevent a repeat of the debacle.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here