The current limit is $7,500. The difference between the old and new - $2,500 - is enough to buy an election, Anderson said.

"A $10,000 limit is basically no limit at all," the mayor told The Salt Lake Tribune. "I just don't think it's right."

Council members, who unanimously approved the hike, didn't say they would override the veto. But some took swipes at the mayor's heady spending days during his 2003 re-election bid.

Councilwoman Nancy Saxton was surprised at the mayor's move, noting he didn't voluntarily restrict his spending to $375,000 in 2003. Anderson spent almost $769,000 - a new city record - to defeat challenger Frank Pignanelli. "I don't know why he wouldn't want $10,000," she said.

And Councilman Dave Buhler said the mayor is "pretending to be so concerned about campaign contribution limits" while the mayor accepted what some say amounted to thousands of dollars over the $7,500 limit in free advertisements from taxi cab drivers who placed Anderson re-election wraps on their cars. Buhler noted that at about the same time, the mayor's office was forming new taxi-cab guidelines that were favorable to those companies.

Anderson said those wraps were akin to bumper stickers. And a Salt Lake County investigation found the wraps had no value.

Buhler - who is considering running for mayor in 2007- is behind the campaign contribution increase. He said the jump was to account for inflation - not his own possible election bid - since the current cap was set in 1998. He doubted he would try to override it. "I don't think it's a big deal."

Anthony Musci, with the watchdog group Common Cause, opposes $10,000 contributions and says even $7,500 is excessive.

"If the idea behind having contribution limits is so you have to have more widespread support for your campaign, both limits are high for a mayor's race," Musci said.

The mayor agrees, though he didn't name a more appropriate cap.

Anderson acknowledged he sought out and accepted at least a dozen $7,500 contributions, noting he was playing by the city campaign rules. And he also collected more than $10,000 from donors who gave through their spouses and/or companies, which is legal under the current and proposed ordinances. The developers of The Gateway gave him almost $20,000, for example.

By vetoing the ordinance, Anderson would also be axing a portion he supports - a ban on the personal use of campaign contributions. But that section may not be lost. Buhler said it could be reinstated even without a veto override if the council revisits campaign finance, as he suggests.

He may want to demand office holders report contributions during nonelection years. Such disclosures were previously required but the council recently eliminated them. But Buhler said they may have merit because they could reflect political dealings in the city.

hmay@sltrib.com

See ROCKY, C8