Early in 1999 the American Reform Party formed a committee for the purpose of formulating for the organization's consideration congressional strategy for the year 2000.  At that time, the committee's name was the Congressional Strategy Special Committee (CSSC).  As time went on and the committee took on wider-ranging tasks, that committee evolved into the Electoral Strategy Special Committee (ESSC).  A few of the internal documents in this report have not been touched since last spring and use the older name.

    In the late spring of 1999 that committee submitted a suggested congressional strategy for the ARP to follow.  Only a few of those suggestions have been implemented by the ARP.  However a few members have asked to be able to view the committee's suggestions submitted at at that time in their entirety.  So here they are.

    Be advised that the committee still exists and occasionally updates its recommendations from time to time.  Those updates can be viewed at http://criggs.home.pipeline.com/uppdates.htm.

    The ESSC has recommended individuals who are running for congressional office.  To date, only two individuals have been endorsed by the National Committee.  They are Sam Rankin for Senate in Montana and Tom Campbell for Senate in California.
It is our hope that 20 to 30 candidates across the country
will eventually be endorsed by the ARP.  The unveiling of the
ESSC's recommendations will, we hope, create interest in the
process and lead to endorsements for the November election.

    Please keep in mind that this ESSC report is by way of being an advisory communication issued to the ARP Executive Committee in the summer of '99.  It includes a series of
recommendations, some of which have been approved, others of which still
await disposition.  As such, it should be construed as being solely the
opinion of a grassroots committee created and organized by the Executive Committee to help it develop electoral strategy for the ARP.  It is not, nor is it intended to be
read as, a representation of official ARP thinking with respect either to
its congressional strategy or with respect to the names of candidates
included therein.

    Currently three people serve on this committee.  They are Richard Batson, Kathleen Hopkins, and Charles Riggs.  Mr. Riggs serves as the committee's chair.  In addition, some of the enclosed report was contributed by Chester Gillings, a former member of the committee.

Our final report from May 30, 1999, was preceded by a summarizing letter, which appears below.  The report immediately follows that letter.

May 30, 1999

Dear leaders of the American Reform Party,

     In conjunction with the enclosed suggestions with regard to our
 congressional strategy, the ESSC suggests that the ARP take the
 following actions:

     1)  Direct the Platform Committee to formulate a list of ARP issues requirements
 in order to endorse candidates and a procedure for enforcement of those requirements.

     2)  Form a registered multi-candidate committee with the FEC. (Recently approved by the ARP National Committee, and in the process of being formed)

     3)  Authorize candidate search committees in each potential Senate seat
 and District targeted by ARP.

     4)  Create an outreach program to the media.

     5)  Approve the sending of the enclosed suggested letter to Sam Rankin,
 urging his entrance into Montana's Senate sweepstakes.  (Recently approved by the ARP
National Committee, and sent to Mr. Rankin)

     6)  Recommend that the Platform Committee formulate a questionnaire
 which ARP would send to potential endorsees and candidates by which to gauge
 the level of their support of ARP issue positions.  (Recently approved by the ARP National Committee, and currently being formulated)

    The above represents what the ESSC believes to be the top priority actions that need to be taken by the ARP as we prepare for the upcoming millenial campaign.  In addition, we shall maintain a page containing suggested updates which, in the opinion of the ESSC, should be incorporated into the strategy.  We shall NOT incorporate such suggested changes into the body of the strategy report itself, since, at that point, the strategy will be in a state of consideration by the EC and/or NC and therefore temporarily outside of the jurisdiction of the ESSC.  At such time as the EC and/or NC may choose, in its wisdom, to approve the proposed strategy, it is our hope that the EC and/or NC also shall give carte blanche to the ESSC to make changes as it sees fit over the coming two-year political season, subject only to veto by the leadership bodies of the ARP, like the EC, the NC, and the national convention.

     Sincerely yours,

     The Electoral Strategy Special Committee of the American Reform
 Party
 

    We believe the best long-term path for us to pursue strategically is the creation of a swing coalition over the next six years within the US Congress composed partially of ARP representatives and Senators and partially of Republicrats who are sympathetic to ARP goals, to which we shall apply the term 'Trojan horses.'  Our goal should NOT be to win either house of Congress outright; that would be unrealistic and a waste of our time and energies.  Furthermore, when the ESSC last met, on May 30, we concluded that it would not serve any useful purpose for us to focus on the 2000 presidential election.  If someone is interested in running on our banner as a presidential candidate that is fine, provided the candidate is sober and respectable but, unless that someone is well known and has a high degree of credibility, the 2000 presidential race should not be our primary focus.  Rather our presidential focus should be on 2004 with the afore-mentioned creation of a congressional coalition functioning as a crucial element of that campaign.  Remember too that the creation of a congressional coalition can not only be brought about by electoral victories but also by strong showings which cost the winning candidate a 50+% majority of the vote.  There is nothing like a swing group in the electorate who is effective in its turnout to get a politician's attention.

    While this conclusion remains the official conclusion of the ARP ESSC, the fact remains
that this issue may need revisiting in light of the recent news that former Connecticut
Governor Lowell Weicker may be again considering throwing his hat into the 2000
presidential ring.

    In further aid of our operating principle that ARP's strategy be narrowly focused, we propose that we create contacts and help to organize less than half of the states within this country. We have selected states where the vote for Perot in 92 and 96 was above the national average percentage.  Just to remind you, Perot's vote in 92 was 19% and his vote in 96 was 8%.  Using that as our criterion, we have chosen to focus on the following 25 states:

Alaska,   California,  Connecticut,      Colorado,   Delaware,  Florida,   Hawaii,      Idaho,Maine,Massachusetts,Minnesota,Montana,Nevada,New Hampshire,   New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio,Oregon,   Rhode Island,     Utah,    Vermont,       Washington,West Virginia,    Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

    The Congressional Special Committee has concluded that there are a total of 10 races which should be our party's highest priority as we seek to make inroads in our national houses of Congress. (Click here to open a new window with that Top Ten list.)

    To summarize our results, the top priority Senators who are vulnerable, and where there is also a challenger who seems a logical choice for us to support, are Montana Senator Conrad Burns, New Hampshire Senator Bob Smith, Minnesota Senator Rod Grams, and Washington Senator Slade Gorton.  (Click here to view a table of our Senate prospects in a new window.  You may leave that window open as a reference as you read through this proposal.)

    Where the House is concerned, there are 18 House seats which appear vulnerable and where we appear to have viable candidates available whom we could support. Of those there are six seats which we believe deserve to be given the highest priority by ARP. (Click here to view a table of our House prospects in a new window.  You may leave that window open as a reference as you read through this proposal.)

    Now let us deal with our target states in turn in alphabetical order.  If we do not list a congressional district within a given state it will be because we feel there is both an unsympathetic incumbent there and weak support for our issues and/or third-party/independent candidates there, both sufficient causes for us to give that race a pass.