Pittsburgh City Council is set to cast a final vote on campaign finance reforms today, in what some advocates see as a step toward statewide rules on donations to candidates.

Even a foe of the proposed city ordinance, Councilman Jim Motznik, said yesterday that he wants statewide campaign cash caps. Mr. Motznik drafted a resolution urging the General Assembly to follow Pittsburgh's lead "to create an even playing field for campaign financing across the state," which could come up for a vote today.

In the long term, the state following the city's lead isn't far-fetched, said state Sen. Jay Costa, D-Forest Hills.

"The adoption of an ordinance by the city of Pittsburgh will advance the ball with respect to a statewide campaign finance effort," he said.

The proposed city ordinance, authored by Councilman William Peduto, would bar candidates for city office from taking more than $2,000 per election from any individual or partnership, and more than $5,000 from any of the political committees that represent corporations and unions. Those limits would double if any candidate used $250,000 of his or her own money for campaigns, and big donors would have to disclose any contracts, employment relationships or board appointments with the city or its authorities.

It got a 5-1 tentative nod on Wednesday, with Mr. Motznik voting no and three abstentions.

"Peduto's bill is a good bill," said Mr. Motznik. "It creates an increasing level of transparency in regards to who donates to campaigns. ... But I do think it creates such an unfair advantage to city officials when it comes to running countywide or statewide."

For instance, if a city councilman and an Allegheny County councilman covet the same state seat, the former would face limits until officially becoming a state candidate, while the latter could bring in checks of unlimited size.

When they officially became state candidates, they could raise money under state rules, which now include no cap on check size.

A city official "would have maybe a little bit larger hill to overcome, because he would probably have a smaller war chest to play with," said Barry Kauffman, executive director of Common Cause/Pennsylvania. He argued that the city official's disadvantage would be minor.

Philadelphia passed limits in 2006, which were approved by the state Supreme Court in December.

"If [legislators] see that Philadelphia has done it, and Pittsburgh has done it," Mr. Motznik said, "maybe more of the state senators and House members will realize that the state should be the leader in this."

Reform groups have adopted the opposite strategy.

"We spent 30 years smashing our head against the wall, trying to get campaign finance reform passed by the legislature," said Mr. Kauffman.

In the 1990s, they decided to try the city level.

They're working on getting local reforms in place in cities and large townships, he said.

Local legislation "raises the subject," said state Rep. Dave Levdansky, D-Forward, a longtime advocate for campaign contribution limits. "You essentially have built a block of votes" from towns that have local reform.

He has testified that state House and Senate candidates spent $57.1 million during the 2006 election cycle.

The five-figure bundles in which that money comes distort politics, said Mr. Kauffman. "Campaign contributions drive what gets on the agenda."

Mr. Costa said that the legislature's 2008 schedule is packed with budget, health, energy and education issues. Statewide campaign reform stands a better chance next year, he said.

Pennsylvania is one of 12 states with no contribution limits.