WOMEN ‘INTIMIDATED AND DISCARDED’ AT SUBJECT MATTER: Avoq, the top D.C. lobbying shop formerly known as Subject Matter, has fostered a brutal work environment for women, our Daniel Lippman and Megan R. Wilson report. — The firm settled to stave off a potential lawsuit last year from two female executives, Shanti Stanton and Audrey Chang, who allege that their abrupt terminations were the result of gender discrimination. — And while leaders at the firm denied charges of a hostile and sexist office culture, “interviews with about three dozen former employees of the firm show that Stanton and Chang weren’t alone in their experiences. Twenty-eight of the former employees reported experiencing or witnessing some sexist treatment while at the firm,” according to Daniel and Megan. — “Among the complaints from the departed employees: receiving unwanted comments about their appearance, being berated or yelled at by their bosses, having their ideas shut down, and seeing credit for their work taken by men. Some men were advocates for women, but many others ‘failed upward,’ in the words of several former employees.” — A majority of the women who spoke to POLITICO “said the firm’s male leaders have had disproportionate sway and decision-making power, compared to women at senior levels.” But four of the women contacted disputed that the firm had been a poor place for them to work. — CEO Nicole Cornish told Daniel and Megan “that the overarching allegation made by former employees that Subject Matter was a poor workplace for women is ‘inconsistent with the facts of who we are and the firm we have built,’” and noted that Avoq currently has women installed in a number of key leadership positions throughout the firm. IN THEIR WORKING ERA: For the past decade, the equally divided Federal Election Commission "deadlocked so often it became a political punchline as investigations languished, enforcement slowed and updated guidelines for the internet era stalled," but The New York Times' Shane Goldmacher reports that that's abruptly changed. — "In a series of recent decisions that are remaking the landscape of money in American politics, an ascendant new bloc of three Republicans and one Democrat is voting together to roll back limits on how politicians, political parties and super PACs raise and spend money." ALL IN THE FAMILY: “Since 2019, Joe Biden has repeatedly distanced himself from his family’s business dealings, saying that he has never so much as discussed them with his relatives or with anyone else,” our Ben Schreckinger writes. — “But House impeachment inquiry interviews, public records and emails reviewed by POLITICO show that members of his inner circle were regularly enmeshed in those dealings: Many of the president’s closest staffers and advisers have doubled as his relatives’ business associates, both during and after their stints working for the man at the center of the Biden family orbit.” — “To allay concerns about any intermingling of their affairs, the Bidens have said that they observe strict interpersonal firewalls to avoid discussing business among themselves. But with so many former and current aides in the mix … onlookers are forced to take family members at their word that those firewalls always held.” ANNALS OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is the rare political group that can still draw plenty of financial support across both sides of the aisle while at the same time supporting pro-Israel candidates in both parties. Lately AIPAC’s fundraising machine has primarily focused on “leveraging its weight in competitive Democratic primaries, spending millions to boost moderates over progressives who have been critical of Israel,” our Jessica Piper and Hailey Fuchs report. — That’s made AIPAC “the biggest source of Republican money flowing into competitive Democratic primaries this year, according to a POLITICO analysis of campaign finance data — and drawn outrage from the left over what it sees as GOP meddling in Democratic contests. Nearly half of AIPAC donors to Democratic candidates this year have some recent history of giving to Republican campaigns or committees.” IF YOU MISSED IT LAST WEEK: The lobbying push to get weight loss drugs like Ozempic covered by Medicare is picking up, our Chelsea Cirruzzo and Megan report, with health advocacy groups and providers deploying a new strategy in the past few weeks. — Instead of pressing Congress to toss a law banning Medicare coverage of weight loss drugs, lobbyists are now pitching HHS with a potential workaround by nudging the agency to classify obesity as a chronic condition — a push some say is a long shot. — “‘Our argument is we're not really talking about weight loss here. We're talking about treating obesity. And therefore — just like HHS did [to allow Medicare to cover drugs for weight gain following cancer or AIDS] — they should do the same thing for obesity,’ said Chris Gallagher, president of Potomac Currents, in an interview.” — “His firm represents a number of groups working on obesity policy issues, such as the Obesity Action Coalition, the Obesity Society, the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery and the American Society of Bariatric Physicians. The shift comes as lobbyists fail to get traction in Congress, where their arguments to overturn a 2003 law that bans Medicare from covering certain drugs, including weight loss drugs, haven’t led to any concrete movement.”
| 
No comments:
Post a Comment