Rocky's 2nd veto brewing a battle

It's "Veto Reloaded" for Salt Lake City's campaign finance disclosure ordinance.

After declining to veto any City Council action during his first 5 1/2 years in office, Mayor Rocky Anderson has issued his second veto in as many months, once again striking down revisions to the city's campaign finance disclosure ordinance.

While council members declined to override the mayor's first veto, this time might be different.

"I think without a doubt we're going to override it," councilwoman Nancy Saxton said.

Previously, Anderson vetoed the law because the council sought to increase the maximum amount one donor could contribute— from $7,500 to $10,000 for mayoral candidates and $1,500 to $2,000 for the City Council candidates.

Now he has again vetoed the ordinance after the council added provisions designed to force candidates to claim free advertising as in-kind contributions.

That provision was specifically aimed at Anderson, who last year received free window displays on many Yellow Cab taxis but declined to report the displays as an in-kind contribution. One industry watcher said the displays were free advertising worth as much as $60,000.

After consulting with the City Attorney's Office, city elections clerk Sonya Kintaro ruled Anderson didn't have to claim the widow displays as free in-kind advertising under the city's existing law.

Council members wanted to close that "loophole" and make sure that any free advertising would be declared in the next election.

But Anderson maintains the new ordinance is "extremely unclear, confusing, unworkable and discriminatory." Also, the law is "likely violative of the Equal Protection Clause and perhaps the Free Speech Clause, of both the U.S. and Utah Constitutions," according to a "statement of objections" letter Anderson sent to the City Council outlining his veto.

Anderson maintains signs in taxi cabs, like the window wraps Yellow Cab drivers displayed during his 2003 re-election bid, are not in typical advertising locations and therefore it would be confusing as to how to value such displays or report them.

It also seems unfair that businesses could display political signs in their windows and not count that as advertising but taxis couldn't, Anderson wrote. Under the ordinance, the only sign a taxi could have that wouldn't be considered advertising is a bumper sticker.