“When Mayor Bloomberg called recently for a law to limit campaign contributions by lobbyists and others who do business with the city, it was generally perceived that City Council Speaker Gifford Miller, a possible candidate for mayor, was the target of his proposal.”

But campaign records show that relationships between lobbyists and the politicians they are paid to try to influence are more common in the City Council than the billionaire mayor, who can finance his own campaigns, suggested when he made his pitch.

According to the city Campaign Finance Board, 41 of 51 council members accepted money from employees of the city’s top 35 lobbying firms for the 2003 election, and three lawmakers from Queens collected more from people associated with those firms than the speaker.

Employees of those firms individually donated $113,296 in campaign contributions to council candidates, according to board records. That number may not include contributions from employees of companies represented by the lobbyists or those bundled by lobbyists who acted as intermediaries.

Mr. Miller, a potential Democratic candidate for mayor, accepted $5,550 of those contributions, placing him fourth among council members. Melinda Katz, a Queens Democrat who heads the council Land Use Committee, led lawmakers with $15,790 in contributions.

Queens council members Eric Gioia, chairman of the council’s Investigations Committee, and David Weprin, the Finance Committee chairman, accepted $13,600 and $12,300, respectively.

The four lawmakers were the top fund-raisers in 2003, and Mr. Gioia had the broadest base of support with $307,460 in contributions from 869 individuals, records show.

The amounts are tiny fractions of what each candidate raised, but many people outside government have reservations about the contributions. They say donating to officials, and then lobbying them, can undermine public confidence in government.

At the same time, few people who study the issue of campaign finance reform are surprised at the contributions. They say they are just another indication of the “pay to play” system through which lobbyists and their firms make donations to ensure leverage with lawmakers.

“I would expect candidates to accept contributions that are acceptable under the law,” said Paul Ryan, the political reform project director at the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles, which has studied New York City’s campaign finance laws and is working with the Los Angeles City Council to enforce stricter limits on campaign contributions from lobbyists.

“That being said,” he continued, “it is reasonable to recognize that the receipt of large campaign contributions from the lobbyist community could create or feed the public’s perception that lobbyists have undue influence on decision-makers.”

The issue of outside interests having influence over city government has been highlighted recently by news reports detailing the seemingly close relationships between politicians and lobbyists and city-funded organizations.

The mayor underscored that relationship last month when he proposed limiting campaign contributions by lobbyists and people who do business with the city to $250. The current limit is $4,950.

The mayor’s communications director, William Cunningham, said that while the mayor’s proposal targets lobbyists, the clients they represent are a much greater threat to public confidence in the campaign finance system.

“What you’re seeing here is a concentration of political power with lobbyists who may give a small dollar amount individually, but the clients they represent contribute a lot more,” Mr. Cunningham said. “The lobbyists are just the gatekeepers.”

Other municipal governments around the country, including Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and several jurisdictions in New Jersey, are wrestling with provisions to curb campaign donations from lobbyists.

The proposals have received mixed reviews, in part, observers said, because it is so difficult to capture the issue without infringing on the rights of individuals to donate. For instance, corporations are barred from making campaign contributions in New York City, but it has become common for several employees of one firm to donate small amounts to a certain candidate.

Deborah Goldberg, the democracy program director at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School, has worked with municipalities outside New York City to reform campaign financing. She said placing an aggregate limit on a firm should be considered.

“If individuals are giving small donations, the perception of corruption is not likely to be terribly significant unless what you’re seeing is what looks like a coordinated effort from a single firm,” Ms. Goldberg said.

“The devil is in the details, and if what you have is the appearance of a coordinated effort to collect a lot of money, that can be perceived as a loophole in the system,” she said.

In the case of Mr. Weprin, the chairman of the council Finance Committee, 18 lawyers from the lobbying firm of Herrick Feinstein donated a total $2,800 to his 2003 campaign. Only seven of those lawyers live in the five boroughs, where Mr. Weprin’s influence is felt.

Mr. Weprin said he has known many employees of the firm for years and that the firm hosted a fund-raiser for him. He dismissed any link between his policy decisions and campaign contributions.

“If you had to limit contributions from anybody who has any interest in anything that we do you’d basically eliminate the entire universe of potential contributors,” Mr. Weprin said.

Campaign finance records show Ms. Katz, chairwoman of the council Land Use Committee, accepted mostly small donations from lobbyists or their employees but also received several contributions of more than $500.

A former member of the state Assembly, Ms. Katz said she does not keep track of her contributors and noted many of them carried over from her years in Albany.

“Anyone who ever calls my office for land-use issues gets an appointment, so I’m not really sure what kind of a conflict of interest that is,” Ms. Katz said. “The question is, is your office open to every person who has an issue? In my case, it is.”

Mr. Gioia, chairman of the council Investigations Committee, has suggested the mayor is in no position to point fingers on campaign finance reform, having spent $74 million of his own money to get elected in 2001.

“Councilman Gioia is proud to receive the support of over 1,000 New Yorkers who believe in his vision and respect the hard work he has done,” said Eli Richlin, director of communications. “The majority of his contributions are under $250 from everyday New Yorkers, and we have received many checks for $10, $20, and even $3.”