Used Bad Checks to Help Fund Campaign, Bates Says : ‘Rubbergate’: Despite disclosure ex-House member vows to continue bid to return to Congress.

Former Rep. Jim Bates acknowledged Friday that he “knowingly” used the House bank’s overdraft protection when he wrote four bad checks totaling $30,300 as loans to his re-election campaign on the eve of the 1990 Democratic primary.

Opening his financial records in what he termed “the most comprehensive disclosure” of any congressman caught in the so-called Rubbergate scandal, Bates conceded that the ability to tap the House bank overdraft protection for campaign funds gave him an edge over opponents who had to rely on their own fund-raising.

“I think you could argue it’s an unfair advantage or perk that members of Congress had,” Bates said.

But Bates contended that he poured about $38,000 into the House bank during roughly the same period he wrote $30,300 worth of bad checks to his campaign--late May and early June of 1990. The deposits were a sincere attempt, he said, to cover the checks, each of which cleared within seven days of being presented to the House bank.

He said he could have taken out a loan or dipped into personal cash reserves for the campaign against challenger Byron Georgiou but used the overdraft protection because he had been told that it was available.

“I could have done this so it meshed perfectly, but knowing there was overdraft protection, I didn’t do that,” he said.

“We were told we had overdraft protection, and we operated under that assumption,” he added. “I could have gotten a loan for $30,000 anywhere, unsecured, or close to it. So I don’t feel that’s a problem.”

Bates, a South Bay Democrat who lost his seat to Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham (R-Chula Vista) in 1990, leads the list of current and former San Diego congressmen with $170,685 worth of overdrafts during the 39-month period ending Oct. 3 that was examined by the House Ethics Committee.

According to Thursday’s edition of the Capitol Hill newsletter Roll Call, Bates is also one of only three U.S. representatives who have admitted using House bank checks to make loans to their campaigns. All three apparently wrote at least one bad check as part of the loans.

Vincent Hall, press secretary for San Diego City Councilman Bob Filner, one of Bates’ opponents in the current race for the South Bay’s 50th Congressional District, said that Bates’ decision to rely on the overdraft protection in the hectic final days of the 1990 primary will not sit well with a public that resents the privileges and perquisites of Congress.

“Jim Bates knew that he had access to an interest-free, penalty-free overdraft service that none of the other candidates had,” Hall said. “His decision to use that service in the final hours of the campaign was an abuse of the public trust and (was) designed solely to preserve his position of power.”

On Wednesday, Bates said he wrote three overdrawn checks for about $18,000 to his campaign. But, according to House bank records that Bates showed to three reporters at his campaign consultant’s office Friday afternoon, there were four checks, and the total was nearly twice as high.

Bates wrote a $6,000 check to his campaign May 23 that was presented to the House bank two days later, but held for insufficient funds until May 29 or 30.

He wrote a $10,000 check May 26, which was presented to the bank May 31 and cleared June 1. He wrote another May 30 for $4,300, which was presented June 1 and held until June. 8.

The final check, for $10,000, was written June 6, the day after the primary, presented June 8 and cleared June 13.

From May 23 to June 13, Bates deposited about $38,000 into his House bank account. But, because Bates was writing other checks besides the ones to his campaign, and because $9,000 wasn’t deposited until June 13, there were insufficient funds to cover Bates’ loans to his campaign.

Bates made deposits of $2,000 on May 23; $13,000 on May 30; $4,985.26 on June 1; $8,000 on June 8; $700 on June 11; and two deposits totaling $9,037.87 on June 13, his records show.

Ironically, Bates beat Georgiou in the primary by more than a 3-2 margin, despite being heavily outspent by his challenger and running under the cloud of a 1989 rebuke from the House Ethics Committee for sexually harassing female staffers.

Bates said he has no intention of dropping out of the current race for the 50th District seat, claiming that a poll he conducted Thursday showed his support has dropped only 5 percentage points as a result of the Rubbergate disclosures.

“I’m going to win. I’m a tough cookie. I’m as tough as Bill Clinton,” said Bates, who represented the area, then labeled the 44th Congressional District, from 1983-1991.

State Sen. Wadie Deddeh is the third major contender in the hard-fought Democratic primary. The winner of the contest will be a strong favorite to capture the seat in the heavily Democratic, predominantly working-class district.

Bates said that all of Congress’ perks, from free medical care to discount haircuts, should be eliminated, and added that, in retrospect, he would not have employed the overdraft protection had he foreseen that its use would be examined in the current light of public resentment.

“I didn’t ask for this perk. I didn’t want it. I did use it,” he said.

He also said that, if elected, he would not accept the controversial pay raise for which he voted in 1989.

Speaking of his 89 overdrafts during the period examined, Bates said that he would sometimes receive telephone calls from the House Bank telling him he was short of funds and would deposit them into his account. On other occasions, however, there were no phone calls.

Bates could not explain why the calls were sporadic, speculating that clerks at the bank were busier some times than others.

When he wrote the checks to his campaign, Bates said, he was in California, where he kept some House bank checks in his personal office.

“I could have called my wife and had it wired that way, with the same result (as) overdraft protection,” he said. “And, in retrospect, I would have done that because I wouldn’t have had to answer all these questions.”