Van de Kamp Finds No Illegality in Robbins’ Loans

The state attorney general’s office announced Wednesday it had found no evidence that state Sen. Alan Robbins (D-Van Nuys) broke any state laws when his campaign committees lent more than $1 million to business associates, staffers and community organizations.

“I’m a happy man,” Robbins said moments after learning of the finding. “Everything we did was legal, proper and in full conformity with the spirit and intent of the law.”

At the same time, Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp said his office’s six-week review of Robbins’ loans had spotlighted the need to clarify the state’s vague legal guidelines for the use of campaign funds.

“The existing legislation is, unfortunately, fertile ground for public cynicism,” Van de Kamp said in a news release.

“The issue raised in this matter reflects the need for legislation that specifically sets forth comprehensive definitions for what constitutes ‘personal use’ or ‘personal gifts’ and what investment standards apply to the administration of campaign funds.”

Robbins, one of the Legislature’s most prolific fund-raisers, said he agreed with Van de Kamp’s call for revision of the election law governing the use of campaign funds, although he does not plan to sponsor such legislation.

“If the law had been clearer, I presume I would not have been subjected to the inaccurate news accounts,” he said, referring to stories about the loans that triggered the attorney general’s review in January.

State election law does not prohibit the use of campaign funds as loans. The law does ban personal use of the money if it “creates a substantial personal benefit and does not have more than a negligible political, legislative or governmental purpose.”

The law’s definition of personal use includes “payments or reimbursements for personal gifts of $100 or more.”

Van de Kamp and chief assistant Richard D. Martland said in a 10-page letter to Robbins, which was released to the media, that their inquiry found that all the loans by Robbins’ committees could be interpreted to have more than a negligible political, legislative or governmental purpose. Robbins’ real estate business partners who received loans also have contributed money to his campaign committees or supported him politically.

Further, the letter said, the inquiry found no basis to conclude that any proceeds from the loans were used in Robbins’ joint business ventures with his associates.

Among the major recipients of the loans were wealthy businessman Michael R. Goland, to whom Robbins advanced a total of $360,000 from 1984 to 1987; developer Robert Blake, $107,500; Melvyn Nachman, $220,000; Clifton Sherwood, $100,000, and Maury White, $90,000.

Goland told investigators that he put the funds into his Balboa Construction Co. to use as working capital for his mini-warehouse business. He said none of the money was used in either of his joint ventures with Robbins.

The others said the loans were not used in businesses in which they were involved with Robbins.

Robbins and Goland are partners in Club California, a 213-unit apartment building in Westwood, and Los Robles Office Partners; Robbins and Blake were involved in a Ventura County land deal; Robbins and Nachman jointly own an apartment building; Sherwood has an ownership interest in Viking Savings & Loan, from which Robbins received an unsecured loan of $100,000 in 1986, and Robbins and White are co-owners of an apartment building.

These loans generally were unsecured and carried an interest rate above the current prime rate but did not exceed 10%. They were payable on specified dates, but these deadlines frequently were extended by Robbins or his accountant, Keith Rosen, according to the letter from the attorney general’s office.

All of these loans have been repaid, many in January at Robbins’ behest after publicity prompted the official review.

Referring to the advances to business associates as “loans to political supporters and contributors,” the letter said, “they were made at not insubstantial interest rates and for purposes which could reasonably be argued were political and not personal.”

In making no-interest loans to nonprofit organizations, Robbins “maintained good political will with the community and enabled the organizations to continue with their work when government funding was either insufficient or untimely,” the letter said.

And, by lending money to staffers, Robbins claimed he had “contributed toward maintaining high office morale and low employee turnover,” the attorney general’s letter said.

Although he maintained he did nothing wrong, Robbins announced in January that he no longer would advance money to business associates because such transactions could be misinterpreted by the media.

Van de Kamp, a Democrat who is expected to seek the governorship in 1989, pledged to work “with concerned legislators to pursue reforms” to clarify the election law.

A relieved Robbins said he would support such an effort, but not join the front lines.

“It’s not an area of my normal legislative interest,” said the chairman of the Senate Insurance Committee.

And, he added, “to do so might ruffle the feathers of some of my colleagues,” who, presumably, would prefer that the law remain vague.