MEMO: The Case Against DC Lobbyist Denise Gitsham
TO: Interested Parties
FROM: Barb Solish, DCCC West Press Secretary
DATE: June 8, 2016
The results of California’s primary mark the beginning of the general election race for California’s 52nd Congressional District. Lobbyist Denise Gitsham, limping out of her messy Republican primary, will face second-term incumbent Scott Peters in November.
Throughout her campaign, lobbyist Gitsham has demonstrated time after time how wrong she is for San Diego. Gitsham is far outside the mainstream on the issues and is already demonstrating the lack of transparency one would expect from a D.C. lobbyist.
On the other hand, Peters has raised over $2 million and has gained support from across the political spectrum, including Planned Parenthood Action Fund and the San Diego Chamber of Commerce.
TOO EXTREME FOR SAN DIEGO
When lobbyist Denise Gitsham told CPAC’s ultra-conservative audience earlier this year that she’s “one of them,” she wasn’t kidding. In seven short months, she staked out her positions on the issues about as far right as she can go.
“I am a pro-life candidate… And I would defund Planned Parenthood”
“We can look to [Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid] to begin the process of cutting down how much we spend.”
“I believe that marriage is in fact defined…between a man and a woman…and that shouldn’t be changed or redefined by anybody.”
“If we know you’re coming here for that reason, you’re not allowed to come. It’s not hard to pick out a pregnant woman.”
Gitsham has also endorsed putting guns in our schools, supports a flat tax that would raise taxes on San Diego’s working families, and signed the Americans for Tax Reform pledge.
AMBIGUOUS ETHICS
In March, lobbyist Gitsham came under fire for calling herself “ambiguously ethnic enough to pass for almost anything,” in reference to her time as a Hispanic outreach advisor for President Bush, but it’s her ambiguous ethics she’ll need to explain to voters.
Gitsham is 0-2 on properly submitting personal financial disclosure forms, leaving voters in the dark about potential conflicts of interest. Twice the San Diego Union-Tribune had to prod Gitsham until she filed correctly:
March 29th: San Diego Union-Tribune: Denise Gitsham failed to file ethics report
Months behind a deadline, campaign turns in incomplete forms
June 1st: San Diego Union-Tribune: Gitsham fumbles financial report again
Errors, omissions found in candidate’s political ethics forms
Either lobbyist Gitsham is willfully deceiving voters, thinks the rules don’t apply to her, or is simply incapable of filling out basic paperwork.
CONCLUSION
San Diegans have a clear choice this November between bipartisan problem solver Scott Peters or right-wing D.C. lobbyist Denise Gitsham.