While the October 5 debate between Councilmember Gary DeLong and State Senator Alan Lowenthal was cordial, a post-debate incident between DeLong and a California Democratic Party employee was anything but. According to many reports and a video that has now surfaced, DeLong grabbed the cell phone of an opposition tracker who was attempting to record him as he talked to members of the crowd after the forum.
According to a California Democratic Party press release, “DeLong lost it upon seeing that his post-debate public statements were being recorded by a tracker working for the California Democratic Party. He snatched the tracker’s cell phone out of her hand and began deleting videos. Later, DeLong’s staff verbally and physically harass[ed] the tracker as she trie[d] to record the candidate’s public statements.”
But DeLong recounts the incident quite differently.
“Of course they say that,” DeLong told the Long Beach Post when apprised of the California Democratic Party’s statement. “They were in the wrong. The woman was extremely aggressive. She had the camera inches from my face, and now they’re trying to defend her harassment. […] It’s the type of dirty-tricks campaigning that Alan Lownethal does.”
According to the California Democratic Party, Kelsey Hewlett is an employee currently assigned “to record what DeLong says during public appearances,” a duty referred to as “tracking.”
In a press release, DeLong referred to Hewlett as “Alan Lowenthal’s stalker” and said the October 5 incident was a “continu[ation of] the Lowenthal campaign strategy of bullying and intimidation. […] I asked her nicely several times to get the camera out of my face. When she refused to remove the camera from my face, I removed the camera and delivered it to a representative of the League of Women Voters so they could take appropriate action. I play by the rules and believe Alan Lowenthal should as well. Just because he lost the debate doesn’t mean he shouldn’t act in a more ethical manner.”
Mike Shimpock, a spokesperson and campaign strategist for Sen. Lowenthal, told the Post that Hewlett does not work for Lowenthal and that the incident has nothing to do with Lowenthal and everything to do with DeLong himself.
“We don’t employ her, we don’t pay her, we have no influence over her,” said Shimpock. “He says she was aggressive, so his response was to double-down on aggression? You don’t do that if you’re running for Congress. You don’t do that anywhere. […] The importance of the video [of the incident] is that it helps people see what kind of person he is.”
Shimpock notes that the use of trackers by political parties and candidates—including DeLong himself—is commonplace.
“The only thing that’s unusual about this situation is how quickly DeLong cracked and went after this five-foot-tall, 97-pound woman,” Shimpock said. “I can’t remember a single time when a tracker’s been assaulted at an event. […] If he can’t tolerate this level of scrutiny on the campaign trail, how can he stand up to special-interest groups?”
But DeLong maintains that the incident is not about the use of trackers in general, but the behavior of this particular tracker.
“I’ll be clear: I don’t mind being taped,” DeLong told the Post. “But when someone holds a camera inches from my nose, it prevents people from talking to me. And I think that’s irrational behavior. And I question their motives.”
Jan Gallup, president League of Women Voters of Long Beach Area, which sponsored the debate, supports DeLong’s version of events.
“[Hewlett] was being very aggressive,” said Gallup, who was in the room during the confrontation. “She was holding the phone closer than a foot away from Gary’s face, really being intrusive. He was trying to talk to people, and it was impossible. She was being very aggressive. […] I asked her very politely not to do it, and I got a very rude response. […] My impression—and it’s just my impression—was that she was trying to provoke a response. And she got one.”
In his press release, DeLong claims that Hewlett “followed our six-year-old daughter around at a festival and took continuous video of her,” a charge he repeated to the Post.
“While I recognize that I’m considered a public figure, I don’t like it when a public stalker tries to make video of my 6-year-old daughter,” he said. “And I think that’s a reasonable position for any father to take.”
According to Tenoch Flores, communications director for the California Democratic Party, Hewlett would not be available for comment.
“A tracker’s job is to shoot candidates while making public statements,” Flores told the Post. “I don’t know the specific allegations [concerning DeLong’s daughter], but it’s important to note that at a public event, [a candidate’s presence] is something a tracker is going to focus on recording.”
In his press release, DeLong points out that Hewlett’s post-debate recording was done in violation of the guidelines set forth by the League of Women Voters (LWV).
Flores told the Post that it was his understanding that the LWV guidelines applied only to the debate itself, not post-debate discussion. However, on Hewlett’s video, representatives of the LWV confirm DeLong’s interpretation. “[This recording] is not authorized,” a LWV member says. “We made that very clear in the [event] announcement.” And Gallup told the Post that everyone who entered the debate hall was given a handout stating, in part: “No filming of the forum without advance approval.”
“Apparently we need to add ‘as well as for a half-hour before and a half-hour afterwards,'” Gallup said. “I think it was pretty clear that the intent was for the candidates to be comfortable talking and free from unauthorized videotaping—before, during, or after. But apparently some people are going by the letter, not the spirit.”
According to DeLong’s press release, “[Hewlett] continued video taping, even after she was notified by the League that both candidates had signed a form agreeing to the rules and that she was violating those rules, until the University Police arrived to deal with her.”
But campus police say that is not entirely true.
“No, it is not accurate,” said CSULB Police spokesperson Toni Barone of DeLong’s account of police actions. According to Barone, an officer present during the entire event called in to CSULB Police headquarters as a precaution as he witnessed the disturbance, but police had no interaction with Hewlett.
“They [i.e., additional officers] arrived to back up the officer inside if anything should break out,” Barone said. “But they did not enter [the buidling].”
Ultimately, while both the DeLong and Lowenthal campaigns say their electoral contest should be about substantive issues, they disagree about how the post-debate incident fits in.
“This campaign should be about the issues and working together to do what’s best for the people of the 47th Congressional District, and the rest of California and the nation—NOT about underhanded campaign tricks and intimidation tactics,” states DeLong in his press release.
“It’s a classic account of a politician attempt to shift blame,” said Shimpock. “If Gary DeLong were being honorable, he would admit fault and move on. But instead he’s trying to shift blame. It’s exactly the kind of partisan politics that’s destroying Washington. […] As much as he wants to make this about Alan Lowenthal, the story is about nothing but Gary DeLong’s behavior—which is unacceptable. […] If he can’t stand the pressure at a debate with a video camera, he’s not going to be able to stand the pressure in Congress.”