A controversial figure has emerged in the political landscape as new revelations about his past social media activity have come to light. Dave Sommers, a longtime associate of Republican Representative Brian Fitzpatrick from Pennsylvania, has made headlines due to his alarming history of racist, sexist, and anti-Muslim posts.
As Fitzpatrick faces a challenging re-election bid this year, he has leaned heavily on content produced by Sommers, who has crafted attack ads against his Democratic opponent, Bucks County Commissioner Bob Harvie. Tailored posts on the hyperlocal Patch website, largely considered non-fact-checked, have formed the backbone of Fitzpatrick’s campaign efforts.
In a revealing report by The Bulwark, it was disclosed that Sommers, a Levittown resident and former journalist, has a troubling track record, including a 2019 conviction for trafficking thousands of protected turtles, for which he served six months in prison. Fitzpatrick’s campaign has referenced several posts by Sommers in at least eight advertisements, falsely claiming that Harvie is under FBI investigation—an assertion Politico confirmed lacks any supporting evidence.
Sommers has been financially linked to Fitzpatrick over a span of years, having received thousands of dollars in payments from Fitzpatrick’s campaigns, including those of his late brother, Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick. Notably, he attended Fitzpatrick’s recent wedding, further solidifying their connection.
The Bulwark’s in-depth investigation uncovered the X account @sommers35 as being linked to Sommers. The account’s activity included derogatory comments regarding women and various disparaging remarks against marginalized groups. For instance, a tweet from February 2021 dismissed the credibility of women who accused President Donald Trump of sexual assault in a particularly derogatory manner.
The account also made highly inappropriate comments regarding Justice Amy Coney Barrett and the other female justices on the Supreme Court, referencing them in a context involving criminal gangs. Such rhetoric raises serious questions about the sentiments being propagated through Fitzpatrick’s campaign.
This year, Sommers has continued his troubling trend on social media, posting inflammatory statements that include attacks on Black teenagers and Islam, calling out Islam as a “religion of rape, incest, and pedophilia,” just days after Fitzpatrick’s wedding. These inflammatory comments could pose risks not just to Fitzpatrick’s campaign but also to his reputation as a moderate.
Despite co-chairing the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus and promoting himself as a centrist, Fitzpatrick has voted along party lines nearly 80 percent of the time. Recently, the Cook Political Report shifted the outlook of his race from “Likely Republican” to “Lean Republican,” illustrating the growing concerns surrounding his campaign.
The response to Sommers’ activities has been muted, with neither Fitzpatrick nor his campaign addressing repeated requests for comments from The Bulwark. Similarly, Sommers has remained silent amid the growing scrutiny of his online actions.
This troubling situation creates a substantial dilemma for Fitzpatrick as he navigates a competitive electoral landscape. As his opponent, Bob Harvie, gains momentum in the race, the reliance on a figure like Sommers who harbors such extreme views could alienate moderate voters.
The condemnation of Sommers’ rhetoric doesn’t just threaten Fitzpatrick’s image but illustrates the challenges facing many contemporary Republican candidates in a divided political climate. With the focus on inclusivity and rising voter sensitivities, the endorsement of extremist viewpoints could be politically perilous.
This situation also casts a spotlight on the ethical implications of a political candidate’s associations and the sourcing of campaign materials. As more voters become aware of the origins of campaign tactics, the fallout from these revelations could influence not just this race, but broader electoral strategies in future cycles.
With the November elections approaching, Fitzpatrick’s campaign strategy of leveraging controversial figures could backfire. If community reactions to Sommers’ past gain traction, it may compel Fitzpatrick to clarify his relationship with him and reassess the narrative he is attempting to convey.
Ultimately, as the political landscape continues to evolve, candidates like Fitzpatrick must navigate rapidly shifting public opinions shaped by social media, community standards, and growing demands for accountability. The ramifications of their associations cannot be underestimated.
As the campaign season heats up, one key question will dominate: can Fitzpatrick distance himself from the divisive rhetoric of Sommers and regain the trust of skeptical voters while maintaining his conservative base?
The next steps for both Fitzpatrick and Harvie promise to be as impactful as they are unpredictable, setting the stage for what could be one of the most contentious races in Pennsylvania’s electoral history.
