High-dollar campaign contributions will likely continue to be an integral part of city of Pittsburgh politics, following Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's veto yesterday of a measure to cap the money flowing into politicians' coffers.

"The ordinance before me today is fraught with problems," Mr. Ravenstahl wrote in his veto message. "It provides an unfair competitive advantage for the wealthy and will have a chilling effect on the labor movement. It will inhibit the ability of challengers to mount successful campaigns against incumbents."

The veto is "hugely disappointing," said Barry Kauffman, executive director of Common Cause/Pennsylvania, which had hoped to use city campaign reform to help spur statewide action. "It will be a blemish on Pittsburgh's reputation. They had an opportunity to say that Pittsburgh government is not for sale, Pittsburgh elections are not for sale. And the mayor quashed that."

The legislation would have limited contributions to city candidates to $2,000 per election by individuals or partnerships, and $5,000 by political committees. The donation limits in the legislation would double if any candidate used $250,000 of his or her own money for campaigns -- a measure designed to give candidates without great wealth the chance to make up some ground if they face a well-heeled rival. Big donors would have to disclose any contracts, employment relationships or board appointments with the city or its authorities.

It passed 5-4. It takes six votes to override a veto.

Mr. Ravenstahl objected to the fact that the mayor would be subject to the same contribution limits as council members. "True reform would cap City Council races at one-ninth of what may be contributed in races for citywide offices," he wrote.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said that candidates can spend as much as they want on their own campaigns.

Mr. Ravenstahl raised $1.15 million in 2006 and 2007. At least $299,000 of that came from 25 supporters -- including individuals and labor union PACs -- that wrote checks of $10,000 or more.

Mr. Peduto, who authored the legislation and said last week that he would not make a third bid for mayor in 2009, said the veto "smacks of corrupt, backward-thinking, old-school politics." He said he believed it was motivated by "pure self-interest. In other words, what is the next office after mayor that Luke Ravenstahl may be looking toward?"

Like some council members, Mr. Ravenstahl said the legislation "does not provide a level playing field between city, county and state office holders" because the other jurisdictions don't limit contributions.

Mr. Peduto argued that when city officials decided to run for higher office, they could set up a separate campaign account for that race, and that account would not be subject to city regulations.

He said that the current system, which allows unlimited campaign checks, puts Pittsburgh in stark contrast with other cities.

"While almost every other state and city across the country has adopted sensible campaign contribution limits, to limit the amount of influence special interests can buy, Pittsburgh continues to be ruled by the political machine," he said.

Mr. Ravenstahl said he prefers "full disclosure of who is giving what to whom" and measures to "share which donors are doing business with the city to end unfounded suspicions of a 'pay to play' culture." His message did not say whether he will propose legislation along those lines.