Perot Forces Set to Become Citizens’ Lobby : Activism: Texas tycoon will use campaign loyalists to push ideas for political and economic reform. He rules out starting his own party--for now.

Fresh from its strong showing in the presidential election, Ross Perot’s volunteer-rich campaign machine is converting itself into a nationwide citizens’ lobby to advance the Texas tycoon’s goals of political reform and sound economic policies.

The campaign group--United We Stand, America--plans to start canvassing soon for members and money for the lobby, which will take the same name. Perot and his top lieutenants decided to create the lobby after ruling out the idea of forming a new political party in the immediate future.

But there are signs that some tension is re-emerging between Perot’s top aides and his grass-roots supporters.

Some Perot activists are upset about a post-election memo from United We Stand’s national executive director, Orson Swindle, saying he plans to set unspecified criteria for membership in the lobby.

Activists said they fear such guidelines may be used to purge or otherwise control outspoken Perot volunteers, who frequently bucked their Dallas-based overseers during the campaign.

But Mike Altman, who chaired Orange County Perot ‘92, said Swindle is only trying to determine “some sense of the movement . . . of the volunteers, as to what they felt the next logical step would be.”

“I think it’s always a good idea to ask people what they think and that’s exactly what (the memo) did,” Altman said.

Perot hopes to sign up for the lobby many of the more than 19 million people who voted for him Nov. 3. The billionaire will temporarily finance the new group, intended to further his oft-stated goals of cutting the national debt and federal budget deficit and limiting special-interest influence in politics.

United We Stand was formed over the summer by Perot and his volunteer legions after he dropped out of the presidential race. When he returned to the fray in October, many in the group continued to campaign for him.

In his Nov. 7 memo, obtained by The Times, Swindle asked leaders of state United We Stand chapters to postpone local elections for new officers “until you receive the criteria for membership from me.”

“Any election held prior to establishing a nationally acceptable membership criteria may be viewed as merely a power play by certain individuals wishing to pursue personal agendas,” warned Swindle.

United We Stand activist Henry Hirschman, a Long Beach eye doctor, complained that the imminent guidelines “sound to me a little like ethnic cleansing. . . . I fear that what they are looking for are tractable people who are willing to take directions from Dallas without a murmur.”

But Sharon Holman, United We Stand’s Dallas spokeswoman, insisted there will be no requirements for members other than paying annual dues, expected to be $15.

Holman contended that all Swindle meant “is that qualified members are people who’ve paid their dues.”

Swindle also said in his memo that he expects the citizens’ lobby to be financially self-sustaining after a three-month fund-raising and membership drive, to be carried out by the Dallas staff. Perot has agreed to provide an unspecified amount of money to keep the group going during its first three months, he said.

Holman said “several million” United We Stand members remain active in the organization following the election, in which Perot stunned many observers by winning 19% of the popular vote.

“We plan to get this moving very quickly,” said Holman. “And I expect that Mr. Perot is going to be very visible at that point. He’s going to be very involved in this organization.”

But some political observers question how long the lobby can sustain itself on only the issues of paying down the national debt, reducing the federal deficit and reforming the political system.

“I just don’t think people are going to stay that excited about deficit reduction,” said Bruce Cain, associate director of UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies.

Cain added that he believes the lobby is being set up to maintain a political base from which Perot can launch a 1996 presidential candidacy.

Swindle was on vacation and not available for comment, but he emphasized in his memo that “bridge funding” from the billionaire for the lobby’s first three months of operation cannot be used for salaries for state Perot leaders.

That became an issue for Perot after it was revealed during the campaign that although he continually touted his supporters as a purely volunteer corps, some state coordinators were being paid by him.

Swindle said United We Stand may form a political party in the future, but for now “a new political party appears to be inappropriate, restrictive and not in the best interests of our efforts.”

“The citizens’ lobby gives us great flexibility as a powerful force for a better America,” said his memo. “If we can build a membership of millions, imagine how we can affect politics and government decisions in the future.”

Many Perot loyalists and others had favored a new party as a vehicle to run candidates for Congress and other offices and spread Perot’s message of “shared sacrifice.”

Shortly after the election, Perot was urged by Theodore J. Lowi, professor of government at Cornell University, to join 1980 independent presidential candidate John B. Anderson, Connecticut Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. and others in forming a broad-based third party. In his home state, Weicker heads a third party called the Connecticut Party.

Lowi said a third party led by Perot could have a better chance of succeeding than previous national efforts because his followers are of the political center rather than the fringes. Lowi warned that Perot would fade into historical obscurity if he failed to establish such a party.

But Perot and his supporters decided their organization needed more time and experience before it puts together a national party.

“For one thing, you need a whole bunch of candidates. And good candidates aren’t just lying around waiting to be tapped on the shoulder,” said Tom Wing, head of United We Stand in Illinois.

Others said they are simply too tired to think about creating a new party now.

“We just got over a campaign. A lot of us just want a rest,” said Cindy Schultz, United We Stand coordinator for Wisconsin.

Schultz said some state chapters may file for political party status with their local election officials in order to maintain Perot’s position on the ballot. The state parties would remain dormant until a decision was made to set up a national party, she said.

Research for the lobby will be conducted by a separate foundation, which Swindle said would be financed by large donations “from individuals and corporations.”

Asked if corporate contributions might raise questions about the political independence of the foundation, Clay Mulford, Perot’s campaign counsel and son-in-law, said Swindle was incorrect and the foundation would not accept corporate gifts.