October 18, 1997
To: MN Reform Party Executive Committee Members and Interested
Friends
From: Phil Madsen (writing as an individual and not as a party
official)
This is to share information and my views with you about the convention that
occurred in Schaumburg, IL on October 3-5, 1997, the future of the national
Reform Party, and the newly formed American Reform Party.
The convention, consisting of delegates and observers from 23 states, dissolved
the National Reform Party Committee (NRPC, informally known as the Schaumburg
group) and established in its place a new national political party named
American Reform Party. The names "National Reform Party Committee"
and "Schaumburg group" no longer apply. The new name is "American Reform
Party," or "ARP."
This report is outlined as follows:
1. News Reports About the ARP Convention
2. The Question of Public Funding and FEC Recognition
3. The Name - American Reform Party
4. Number and Status of the ARP State Party Affiliates
5. What This Means For State Party Organizations and Individuals
6. What This Means For the Reform Party of Minnesota
7. The Long-Term Outlook
1. News Reports
At least three major newspapers covered the convention; USA Today, New York
Times, and Chicago Tribune. These reports were picked up nationwide
by other news organizations, including Minnesota's Star Tribune and Pioneer
Press. While the details vary slightly from article to article, the
reports are essentially accurate. C-SPAN also covered part of the
event. In attendance were official state party representatives and
supportive observers from 23 states. The voting delegates acted unanimously
to establish the ARP. In so doing, the ARP openly and intentionally
severed all ties (real or perceived) with Ross Perot, Russ Verney, Lenora
Fulani, and the National Organizing Committee (NOC) Verney chairs.
Dr. Linda Witherspoon, the newly elected ARP Chair, summed things up saying,
"We've created a political home for the millions of people who voted
for Perot's ideas in '92 but could not bring themselves to vote for the man
in '96. In addition, we have created a home for independent voters
who do not feel represented by the two major political parties."
It is worthy of note that former Perot voters outnumber current Perot voters,
and that beyond the Reform Party itself, public sentiment for a third major
party remains strong. In 1992, 19% of the voters (19,217,213) voted
for Perot. In 1996, only 8% (8,085,402) did so. The Ex-Perot
voter block includes over 11,000,000 voters. Even if all 1996 Perot
voters supported Perot and the national Reform Party today (they don't),
the American Reform Party has the larger base from which to build a viable
major national party.
The American Reform Party already has some highly successful state party
affiliates in its national organization. Now free of the political
negatives and dictatorial control Perot and his supporters bring to the Reform
Party, the American Reform Party is working to establish successful state
parties nationwide.
2. Public Funding and FEC Recognition
Not included in the news reports are details about how the convention decided
to start a brand new national party, and thereby forgo its claim to the Reform
Party name and the accompanying public funding that may be available in the
year 2000.
Early in the convention, a straw poll was taken. The question was,
"Is the FEC fight worth the trouble?" In other words, is it worth it to continue
to fight Dallas for FEC recognition as the national party committee of the
Reform Party? A small minority of participants answered yes. A strong
majority answered no. People answering "yes" argued that by opposing the
NOC's application to the FEC, the NRPC could probably delay the FEC
decision. That delay would provide time to further increase the Schaumburg
family of affiliated state parties. With that stronger base, the case
could then be made that the main body of the national Reform Party consists
of these people and states, and that they are the ones that most deserve
FEC recognition.
Those answering "no" agreed that the NRPC probably did have the ability to
delay the FEC decision and thereby buy time. They also pointed out
that: (a) such a delay would only prolong the connection with Dallas, (b)
Perot, Verney, and Fulani are driving far more people out of the party than
they are bringing in, (c) Perot will not rule out another run for President
in the year 2000, and (d) the general public believes the Reform Party to
be Ross Perot's playtoy.
They argued that this combination makes the national Reform Party a loser.
In the shadow of Perot's billions, a few million dollars from the FEC will
not change the public's perception of the Reform Party and will not overcome
Perot's, Verney's, and Fulani's political negatives. They added that
the Dallas-led party can be expected to be as dictatorial and self-serving
as ever, and state party organizations are unlikely to see a dime of that
public money spent for their benefit.
When it became evident that majority support for fighting the FEC fight did
not exist, the recommendation to do so was dropped. With that
recommendation off the table, no one in the room could cite a single advantage
in continuing to associate with Perot, Verney, and Fulani, and their national
Reform Party.
While the Reform Party has ballot access in more states than the ARP, this
was seen as a short-term circumstance. In most of the 30 states where
the Reform Party has ballot access, the party exists by virtue of Perot's
1996 presidential vote. In general, where Perot loyalists control a
state party, they have not been developing their state organizations.
Or, where they have tried to do so, they have failed. In many of these
states, the party amounts to little more than the legal paperwork that
establishes its existence and a handful of Perot loyalists. These loyalists
have not done the work it takes to build membership and maintain ballot access
through multiple election cycles. Consequently, the Reform Party will
likely lose ballot access in 1998 in most of the states where it now has
it.
The Schaumburg convention deemed public credibility to be more valuable than
public funding. While public funding might have provided a nice boost
for a new party, the cost of obtaining that funding - associating with the
party of Perot, Verney, and Fulani - did not justify the benefits of receiving
that money. The decision to create a new national party became obvious
and the ARP was born.
3. The Name - American Reform Party
As has been shown time and time again at various national third party
conventions, naming a new political party is no easy matter. Name opinions
vary widely and are often strongly held. This convention was no
different. Suggested names included Conservative Party, American Renewal
Party, New Reform Party, United Reform Party, New Federalist Party, Independence
Party, National Reform Party, Progressive Party, and simply sticking with
Reform Party.
Much of the debate centered around how the name would resonate with the public
and the press. Many people argued for a name that did not include the
word "Reform," saying that would eliminate the Perot stigma once and for
all. In his keynote address, Martin Gross, a writer and journalist,
offered his opinions on the journalistic value of the various names.
Mr. Gross favored American Reform Party, saying it was patriotic, and it
would help the media recognize our history with and split from Perot's
Party. Mr. Gross's comments helped change many minds and the delegates
easily adopted the American Reform Party name later that day.
4. Number and Status of the ARP State Party Affiliates
People from 23 states attended this convention. State party organizations
from 11 of those states are now recognized by the ARP and seated on the ARP
national committee. Organizations from all 23 states are expected to
be seated in the near future. Additional state party organizations
are known to be interested in the ARP but were not present at the Schaumburg
convention. Those organizations are also expected to be seated in the
near future.
The status of the ARP state affiliates varies from state to state.
Some are well-established organizations with thousands of members and full
ballot access. Some consist of people who were once part of the Reform
Party but have now departed to build the ARP. Others are organizing
state ARP affiliates by reactivating their old UWSA network of friends.
In at least one state, people who had no prior connection with Perot or the
Reform Party are now organizing an ARP state affiliate.
ARP organizers are building party units from the following constituent groups:
(a) current Reform Party members who want to be part of a freestanding,
self-governing, democracy-based national political party, (b) former Reform
Party members who quit because of Perot's usurpation of the party nomination
process, (c) former UWSA members who quit because of the dictatorial practices
and leadership incompetencies that led to the demise of that organization,
(d) former Perot voters, and (e) independent centrist voters who have never
been affiliated with Perot, UWSA, or the Reform Party.
5. What This Means For State Party Organizations and Individuals
Regarding public policy views, there is very little difference between the
Reform Party and the American Reform Party. The differences lie in
party leadership style (top-down, Dallas-controlled vs. bottom-up,
member controlled) and in loyalty to Ross Perot (worthy of leadership vs.
unworthy of leadership). Some state parties will be able to resolve
these issues and continue as united entities. Others will fail to do
so and a split will occur. Such splits have already occurred in several
states. Where splits exist, the competing parties are no longer fighting
for control of a common resource or organization. They are competing
to win the confidence of the voters and to win the commitment of citizens
who are willing to step in and help build the party.
For individuals, it is no longer necessary to wage a civil war for control
of your state party organization. If you are a Perot loyalist, you
can affiliate with and help build Perot's Reform Party. If you are
a party democracy activist, you can affiliate with and help build the American
Reform Party. Depending on the state, a split can create difficulties
that benefit no one, or it can be a good thing that untangles feuding members
from one another and redirects people's activities to more positive ends.
Either way, it is the way things work in a democracy. Where disputes
exist, groups form and compete to win voter approval.
6. What This Means For the Reform Party of Minnesota
As one of the nation's most successful state Reform Parties, the Reform Party
of MN has been participating with the predecessor organizations of both the
national Reform Party and the American Reform Party. This made sense
to the majority of MN Reform Party members since both entities were emerging
entities.
As a result, the MN Reform Party is currently affiliated with both national
organizations. Now that the American Reform Party is formally organized
as a national party and that the national Reform Party will soon become similarly
organized, the MN Reform Party will have to make a choice. Recognizing
the transitional circumstances of MN and other dual-seated state parties,
the ARP constitution provides a grace period. This grace period provides
the time these state parties need to hold their conventions and take their
affiliation votes. Note that the ARP imposes no party name requirement
on its state affiliates. A state party may name itself whatever it
thinks best.
The national Reform Party will soon hold its founding convention in Kansas
City and adopt its state party affiliation requirements. As with the
ARP, it is unlikely that dual-seated states will be tolerated for long.
The MN Reform Party will have to make a choice at least by 12-31-98 (when
the ARP grace period expires), and perhaps sooner, depending on the affiliation
criteria adopted in Kansas City.
The supreme governing body of the MN Reform Party is the state convention.
The convention will likely occur in the first half of 1998. Any affiliation
decisions made by subordinate committees before then would only be relevant
for a few months. For that reason, I believe it is best for the executive
committee and central committee to leave the MN affiliation decision to the
state convention.
7. The Long-Term Outlook
I believe the American Reform Party (ARP) will eclipse Perot's Reform Party
(RP) as the party of choice for citizens who are willing to help build America's
third major national party. This will occur for the following reasons:
-
Perot is not contributing any of his money to the RP. National RP leaders
have privately confirmed this fact. As RP members become aware that
Perot's money is not available to them, many will depart.
-
Lenora Fulani and her supporters have infiltrated the RP and are likely to
gain a fair amount of party control at Kansas City. Her prior political
history and accompanying political baggage are abhorrent to many party
members. When they see her or her supporters in positions of RP prominence,
many will depart.
-
The RP has ballot access in about 30 states. They will lose much of
this ballot access in 1998 because they failed to build state party
organizations. National RP leaders are actually discouraging state
parties from fielding RP candidates for the US Congress in 1998. The
ballot-access setback and lack of meaningful mid-term election activity will
cause many RP members to depart.
-
Ross Perot is known to the general public as a quitter, a two-time loser,
and a third-rate candidate. Many voters genuinely believe him to be
a political nut case. His continued association with the RP, and the
fact that his loyalists are unwilling to sever that association, destine
his party to be a loser in the states where Perot loyalists control the
party. In states where the RP suffers one loss after another, or fields
no candidates at all, RP members will depart.
-
Recall Perot's difficulty in finding well-known well-qualified running
mates. Note that even with its widespread ballot access, the Reform
Party has not attracted a single national political figure of note into its
ranks. Except for Perot, and because of Perot, the RP will likely remain
a no-name party.
-
Read the following unedited e-mail message from the RP National Organizing
Committee Vice Chair to party members. Note the mindset it indicates.
From: Dale Barlow > >To: "M C Goats"
Subject: Fw: EMERGENCY ACT NOW!!! > >Date: Tue,
7 Oct 1997 14:31:42 -0500 Mary Clare, please spread this message to our dedicated
members: > >Thanks!
Dear, dear, dear members,
I just got off the phone with Mr. Ross Perot. It has come to my attention
that Ross does not know how much we love and miss him. He has been deluged
with negative headlines (due to the Schaummies) for the past year. Guys and
Gals, he doesn't know how much we dearly miss him. IF YOU WANT ROSS BACK
IN THIS PARTY... PLEASE ACT TODAY ON THIS REQUEST FROM THE HEART: ROSS WILL
BE IN TOWN THIS WEDNESDAY, OCT 8TH ONLY. WE WANT TO COVER HIM UP WITH FLOWERS,
CARDS AND TELEGRAMS. PLEASE EVERYONE, LET OUR DEAR INSPIRATIONAL HERO, KNOW
HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT HIM!!!!!!!! Act now! (For example, Paul Truax, State Chair
of Texas, is sending him flowers to be delivered today with the message..."WE
MISS YOU, WE NEED YOU, PLEASE COME BACK TO US, ROSS!) SEND TO: Mr. Ross Perot,
12377 Merit Drive, Dallas, TX 75251.
From the heart, Dale Barlow RPNOC Vice Chair
-
How likely is national RP success with such Perot-centric leaders at the
helm?
The national RP is unlikely to completely disappear. The FEC public
funding will likely be awarded to the Reform Party and disbursed to that
Dallas-led entity in the year 2000. The Perot loyalists and those with
an eye on obtaining a slice of the FEC public funding will likely remain
together until then, sustained by their hoped-for money and candidate.
With this group clustered together in the RP, the ARP is free of their political
negatives. The ARP will be able to clearly distinguish itself as a
credible, grass-roots party that is owned and operated by its members.
As stated above, the ARP has a base of 11 million Ex-Perot voters on which
to build, plus millions of independent voters who want a third major national
party but will have nothing to do with Perot or his party. Many activists
and some high-level political figures have indicated a willing ness to help
build a third major party if the Perot problem could be solved. By
establishing itself as it has, the ARP has now solved the Perot problem.
With that problem solved, ARP activists believe they will succeed in building
the major national party of political reform.
While RP national leaders are begging their members to send flowers to Ross
Perot, ARP leaders are establishing fundraising foundations, recruiting national
political figures to sit on ARP advisory boards, registering state party
organizations, reactivating old UWSA networks, and engaging in other party
building work as appropriate in their states. And they are doing so
with the optimism and enthusiasm that comes from being free of the political
baggage and dictatorial control that encumbered them in the RP.
ARP activists have dismissed the national Reform Party as a lost cause.
They are no longer working to reform the Reform Party. Free of Ross
Perot and his loyalists, and free of Russ Verney's criticism that they are
in it for the public funding, ARP activists are now working to reform American
politics and government with a new vitality and undeniable clarity of purpose.
I urge all Minnesota Reform Party members to join me in supporting Minnesota's
affiliation with the American Reform Party. The ARP is doing the right
things for the right reasons. This national party is worthy of our
support.
What's
New? |
Repko-Bate Series
| State
Links |
Platform
|
Constitution
| Press
Releases
ARP Issues |
ARP Candidates
|
Archives
|
Convention
|
Membership
|
Contributions
|
Contact
Us
Candidates Requesting
ARP Endorsement - Please Click Here
ARP
Issues & Answers
Buffalo Reborn:
Symbol
ALL THIRD PARTY /
POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS - CLICK HERE
©1998-2006:
American Reform Party
Website Designed, Updated,
Maintained & Hosted by ON
IT Industries
