Reform Party Activists Look Beyond Perot for Candidate

WASHINGTON —  Although most political professionals still assume that Ross Perot will be the presidential nominee of his new Reform Party, efforts are stirring among some grass-roots party activists to recruit other candidates to contest the nomination.

Behind these maneuvers are continuing signals that Perot has concluded that his image has been irredeemably damaged and would prefer not to run again.

“It is very clear to me from everything I have ever seen or heard that if there was someone who would step forward and take the responsibility for taking the hits and the blows . . . he does not need it to be him,” said one Texas businessman close to Perot. “He is not a glutton for punishment.”

During the last few weeks, several sources close to Perot have conveyed that message to former Colorado Gov. Richard D. Lamm and urged him to seek the nomination. Lamm acknowledges that he is drawn to the potential forum that the Reform Party nomination could provide, and he plans to deliver the keynote speech at the California Reform Party convention, scheduled for June 1 in Los Angeles--and perhaps other party conventions this summer.

Lamm, a Democrat, insists that he has no plans to seek the party’s presidential nomination although supporters believe that he still could be persuaded to change his mind. Likewise, former Rep. Timothy J. Penny (D-Minn.), a deficit hawk, has rebuffed requests from Minnesota activists that he seek the Reform Party nomination.

Other Reform Party activists interested in alternatives to Perot are talking about recruiting candidates arrayed across the ideological spectrum--from Sens. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.) and Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo.) to former Sens. John C. Danforth (R-Mo.) and David L. Boren (D-Okla.).

New York businessman Tom Golisano, who drew 4% in an independent bid for the Empire State governorship in 1994--and has the added attraction of being able to finance his own campaign--has been mentioned as a potential presidential or vice presidential nominee. And economics consultant Jude Wanniski, a founding supply-sider who was instrumental in recruiting Steve Forbes into the Republican presidential race, is now actively urging the Reform Party to draft Jack Kemp, the former GOP presidential contender and secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the George Bush administration.

But none of these figures has taken any steps to pursue the nomination, and most of these names amount to little more than wishes.

At least one reason potential candidates have been reluctant to step forward is widespread skepticism that Perot would ultimately allow someone else to carry the banner for the party he created and has bankrolled.

“No one of stature is going to come forward if they think Perot is going to make himself available at the last minute,” Penny said. “He either has to take the risk of closing the door, or no one will step forward to contest the Reform Party nomination.”

The Reform Party now plans to pick its nominee at a convention around Labor Day, although ballot requirements in California and other states that insist on a nominee being named earlier could force the party to move its gathering to mid-August.

Almost everyone involved in the effort agrees that no one could seriously challenge Perot for the nomination if the Texas billionaire pursues it. “Nobody is going to butt heads with Perot in this process,” said attorney Nick Sabatine, the chairman of the Pennsylvania Reform Party. “It’s a waste of time to try to do that.”

But Perot has repeatedly said publicly that he would prefer that the party nominate someone else. And both directly and through intermediaries, he has delivered that message in private as well over the last few weeks, sources say.

Sabatine, for instance, met with Perot after a recent speech in Philadelphia and came away “absolutely” convinced he would step aside if a credible candidate emerged.

Yet, significantly, Perot has not unequivocally closed the door on running himself. One politician discussed as a potential nominee for the party recently met with one of Perot’s senior officials to discuss the billionaire’s intentions. The official told the potential candidate that Perot “would prefer nothing more than it to be someone else,” but could not withdraw his name from consideration because to do so would demoralize the volunteers now working to place the party on the 50 state ballots.

Others close to Perot remain dubious that he could ultimately cede control of his party. But it remains unclear how the party could finance a viable campaign if Perot is not the nominee--because he can only spend unlimited funds on his own behalf, not for another candidate.

“Everybody is being naive if they don’t come up with a solution to the financing problem,” said Gordon Black, a pollster who has advised Perot.

This past week, Perot and Reform Party officials asked the Federal Election Commission to rule that the party’s presidential candidate would be eligible for federal funds, much as the Democratic and Republican nominees are. If that effort succeeds, a party nominee other than Perot would have more than $30 million to run with, according to Reform Party estimates.

That is just one of the signals that Perot might step aside--indications that have been strong and consistent enough to inspire rustlings of activity meant to lure other potential candidates into the race.

The most concerted efforts to recruit a candidate have centered on Lamm, who is probably best known for his statement in 1984 that elderly, terminally ill patients have a “duty to die and get out of the way” rather than let “all our machines and artificial hearts and everything else” prolong life at great expense to society. He has remained a strong critic of what he sees as excessive spending on health care and is also an ardent environmentalist, a supporter of reduced immigration and a fiscal hawk committed to fundamental reform of entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security.

Mark Sturdevant, the vice chairman of the California Reform Party, is actively organizing support for Lamm and promising to lead a petition drive this summer to place him on the convention ballot.

In a series of recent interviews, Lamm made it clear that he is “intrigued” by the idea of developing a third party. “I think there is a need for a hard-choice party . . . which says we have to do something about Social Security, Medicare and competitiveness,” he said. He has told friends he views the Reform Party as potentially a “wonderful platform” from which to conduct “a national teach-in” on issues like the deficit and political reform.

Lamm insists that he now has no intention of running for president. “I think if they could find somebody bigger than I to run, it would be nice,” he said. “I don’t have any money, I don’t have any large following and I am saying things that upset a lot of people. I think that would be quixotic.”

Sturdevant, though, says he doesn’t interpret Lamm’s comments as irrevocably shutting the door. “I think there’s room in there,” said Sturdevant, who owns a small manufacturing company in Paramount, Calif. “He looks at the situation and says you don’t just wake up and run for president. That causes some vacillation within him. But I think the interest is there for him to run. It’s just a matter of the stars lining up in the right way.”