COLUMN ONE : Fresh Faces Offer Voter New Look : Record numbers of new candidates--many of them first-timers--are running for the House even as incumbents dash for the door. Reasons range from raw ambition to altruism.

Nicholas T. Hariton has never before sought public office. But he recently left a prestigious Los Angeles law firm to campaign full time for a congressional seat in a crowded Republican primary.

Hariton, who lives in Sherman Oaks, is running in a newly reconstituted district containing parts of the San Fernando Valley, Malibu and Ventura County. The GOP field also includes a veteran assemblyman, two previous candidates and five other newcomers.

The 35-year-old attorney says he decided to enter the race because he wants to use his financial and legal skills to help clean up the mess in Washington. “People are so upset that they tell you the system is falling part, and they do not even want to be involved,” says Hariton. “But the only way to fix it is to be part of it, and to be involved.”

With Congress being assailed almost daily and polls showing that the institution has sunk to an all-time low in public esteem, Hariton and his fellow 24th District candidates are part of an apparent political paradox: At the same time record numbers of incumbents are deciding to hit the door, an unprecedented number of new candidates are competing to get in.

As of May 1, a total of 891 non-incumbents had informed the Federal Election Commission that they intend to seek a House seat, and many more are expected to do so in states that have later primary elections. That compares with 445 who had filed at this point two years ago and 523 in 1982, when the nation’s 435 congressional districts were last redrawn after the decennial census.

In California, which had a March 6 filing deadline, a record 374 candidates registered to seek 52 House seats, a figure that includes seven new districts created under reapportionment. The number of new candidates--which includes minor-party contenders as well as Democrats and Republicans--is double the 1990 figure and a 40% increase over 1982.

Why would so many political neophytes want to subject themselves to the rigors and vicissitudes of a political campaign to join what many now regard as something of a House of Ill Repute? The reasons offered by political experts and the candidates themselves range from the altruistic to the egotistic, and often combine elements of both.

One answer is that the very things that are making life miserable for many incumbents--from anti-Washington sentiment in general to the House bank scandal in particular--have created openings for challengers. For many, the desire to clean up the House has itself become reason enough to run.

This dynamic could make 1992 comparable to the post-Watergate election in 1974, when 92 young insurgents swept into the Capitol to reform the campaign finance system and weaken House seniority rules--deposing three powerful committee chairmen in the process.

But, more broadly, the swollen candidate ranks reflect the pent-up ambitions of state legislators, other lower-level officeholders, and political newcomers who have felt shut out by entrenched incumbents, election experts say. In 1990, 96% of those who sought reelection won; in 1988, 98% did.

“A lot of people who have been active at some level of government are using this 10-year redistricting as an opportunity to get involved,” says Rep. Mike Synar (D-Okla.), a leader in Democratic recruitment efforts. “We’re probably going to have the best group of candidates we’ve had in two election cycles.”

One such candidate is Elaine Baxter, Iowa’s secretary of state and a former state legislator. She is running in a newly drawn district against Rep. Jim Lightfoot, a four-term Republican.

Baxter says she intends to paint Lightfoot as part of an out-of-touch elite that lives “in a world of perks and privilege.” The contest was considered a toss-up even before it was disclosed that Lightfoot had written 105 overdrafts at the House bank.

“The reason I am interested is that I think there will be a landslide election this year and a record number of new people will be elected,” says Baxter, 59. “There will be an opportunity to get things done because people like myself are running on platforms to accomplish change. . . . Enough of us will be elected to accomplish that.”

Congress watchers expect reelection rates to fall. Anti-incumbent sentiment sliced the victory margins of many veteran lawmakers in 1990, encouraging stronger challenges this year. And reapportionment has created open seats in states such as California, Texas and Florida and thrown many previously comfortable incumbents into competitive districts.

Meanwhile, a record number of congressional retirements means that dozens of seats will be up for grabs. The number of voluntary departures, most of them legislative retirements, has already set a postwar record of 55 in the House; the Senate total stands at seven. In addition, six House members and one senator have lost primary elections so far this year.

More will follow. Reapportionment, public disaffection, and an unusual number of credible, well-financed challengers will mean sweeping change.

Serious Fund Raising

An FEC report this month showed the number of challengers who had raised $50,000 or more--enough to demonstrate serious initial fund raising--had jumped from 61 at this point two years ago to 91. In addition, the top 50 challengers had raised 42% more than their counterparts had at the same time in 1990.

“More people are angry and the stakes are higher,” says a top Capitol Hill staffer who asked not to be identified. “You’re going to get a more motivated person running now.”

A Los Angeles Times Poll in March found that 87% of respondents had “some” or “very little” confidence in Congress; only 11% had “a great deal” or “quite a lot.” And despite voters’ historical tendency to be disaffected with the institution but satisfied with their own lawmaker, fewer than half said their own representative deserved to be reelected.

Leaders in both parties predict that turnover in the House of Representatives will top 100. Some say the figure could be the highest since 1948, when the number of new members hit 118--more than a quarter of the entire House. That year, Democratic President Harry S. Truman attacked the Republicans who controlled Congress as do-nothings and helped reverse a huge Republican swing two years earlier.

“The value of winning the office is probably lower now than it was 10 or 15 years ago” because public approbation of Congress has dropped, says Gary C. Jacobson, a political science professor at UC San Diego who has studied what makes congressional candidates run.

Even so, anyone mapping a political career “would not want to forgo the opportunity of an open seat just because the current public attitude toward Congress is negative, unless you think it will be so forever,” Jacobson says. “A shrewder career strategy would be to move now and tolerate a little heat and hope the value of the office would rebound.”

But some experts contend that the best-qualified candidates are deterred by the “fishbowl factor”--the intense media scrutiny that goes with the job. “Increasingly, the people who run for Congress are not the best you can find in these districts,” says Lawrence Hansen, a research communications professor at George Washington University and author of an unpublished paper titled, “The Vanishing American Candidate.” Many people, he says, have decided they can be more effective working for change at home.

Who are the candidates who are lining up for service in an institution under fire?

They are people like Earl Pomeroy, North Dakota’s two-term insurance commissioner. Pomeroy, 39, a Democrat, had announced plans to leave politics--he planned to join the Peace Corps’ Russia initiative--when an unexpected opportunity knocked.

Freshman Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad announced his retirement, citing frustration over the government’s inability to reduce the deficit. Democrat Byron L. Dorgan, the state’s lone representative, declared for Conrad’s seat at the party’s state convention last month. Shortly after bidding fellow Democrats farewell, Pomeroy became the favorite to succeed Dorgan in November.

“I have been very involved on health care financing issues, which are reaching a full boil,” Pomeroy says. And, with a large and dynamic freshman class, “a brand new member of Congress is going to have some clout.”

Some are like Donna Peterson, a 32-year-old West Point graduate who runs a family plumbing business in the Bible Belt region of East Texas. Peterson, a conservative, anti-abortion Republican, is running for the second time against Rep. Charles Wilson, a 10-term Democrat with check-writing problems whom she accuses of losing touch with his hard-pressed constituents.

“I was convinced that our Congress was not leading the nation but was, in fact, causing many of the problems in our country today, and Wilson was a contributor to that,” Peterson says. “Even in 1990, we ran against Congress.”

Running more than once, as Peterson is doing, is a time-honored strategy to dislodge an incumbent. This year, however, many candidates are first-timers. And a significant number are women and minorities--quintessential political outsiders.

Women Join Races

About 100 women are running in Democratic primaries, three times the usual number. About 60 are Republicans, also a large increase. The backlash sparked by the conflict over Anita Faye Hill’s Senate testimony that Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her galvanized some women to run, and enhanced the chances of others who had already decided to do so.

Bolstered by the Voting Rights Act, which requires reapportionment plans to maximize potential minority representation, more black and Latino candidates appear to be positioned to win seats in the House as well.

Rep. Vic Fazio (D-West Sacramento), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, predicts as many as 16 additional minority members and 20 additional women could be elected to the House this year. The current tally is 44 minority lawmakers and 29 women.

The House’s current partisan breakdown--268 Democrats, 166 Republicans and one independent--could also shift. About two-thirds of the retirees have been Democrats, and the majority party clearly has the most to lose amid wholesale change.

Republican officials, who have struggled in the past to recruit quality challengers in some states, say they have overcome that hurdle this year with a record number of candidates.

One is California Assemblyman William F. Filante (R-Greenbrae), who is seeking an open seat representing most of Sonoma and all of Marin counties. Filante says he is running to reform Congress and get the economy moving again but, most of all, to spearhead adoption of tax and other incentives to encourage healthful lifestyles.

“Neither party has it right,” says Filante, a physician. “We need to reduce medical costs and social costs” through less smoking and drinking, better diets and exercise.

Beyond the likelihood that the new House will be more demographically representative, and possibly more Republican, what other changes does 1992 auger?

“Our candidates tend to be people who haven’t run before,” says E. Spencer Abraham, co-chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. “They are generally outraged by what they see in Washington and they are intent to come in and bring change.”

A Democratic congressional strategist agrees: “This is changing of the guard. People are uncomfortable with the nature of change, but it keeps this place vibrant.”

But others say they are troubled by a pervasive campaign focus on largely symbolic issues that fail to address the major problems the country faces.

“I’ve talked to a lot of those candidates and I’ve read what they’re saying,” said Rep. Vin Weber (R-Minn.), who is retiring amid check problems and professed frustration.

“They’re not pledging to do anything that addresses any of our nation’s problems,” he told CBS’ “Face the Nation” recently. “We’re going to have 150 new members . . . promising not to use a bank that’s already closed for a year and give their parking spot over to a homeless person and not work out in the House gym.”

Despite intense media scrutiny of the material benefits of office, pay and perks are not big incentives for most candidates, observers say. For many professionals, running for Congress may mean a pay cut, career disruption and familial dislocation.

The most frequently stated reason for running is public service--to make an impact on the nation. Many candidates also cite ideological concerns or specific goals, such as a desire to decrease the size of government or increase female representation.

Another major incentive is sheer ego. Serving in Congress--even at a time when it is widely criticized--still brings respect in the community, a front-row seat in the national political process, a retinue of attentive staff aides and a place in the limelight.

“Their basic ego is fed by being part of history, part of the record books,” says Roger H. Davidson, a professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland.

Moreover, Davidson adds, “Running for Congress gives them a kind of notoriety, a kind of visibility that can be useful even if they don’t win . . .. “

In any case, plenty of prospective candidates have not been discouraged.

Nick Hariton, the Sherman Oaks attorney who is waging an uphill race in his first try for elective office, says that public anger toward Congress is not about to keep him on the sidelines.

He resigned in February from his firm, O’Melveny & Myers, and has plowed $20,000 of his own money into the campaign. He maintains that his experience restructuring large failed transactions in the firm’s banking and finance group is ideal training for Congress.

“I’ve been watching Congress for a long time and I’ve seen, as we all have, that they’ve lost touch,” says Hariton, who is stumping in a district where he grew up. “I think I can do a much better job. And I clearly believe that it’s worth the sacrifice.”