Some of Boulder’s business leaders say a city ordinance is muzzling them from participating in politics and ought to be scaled back.

The Boulder Chamber of Commerce and a sister organization, the Boulder Economic Council, have taken positions on several city ballot issues. While they’re sharing those opinions with their members, leaders say they fear they’d be in legal jeopardy if they sent out e-mails to anyone else advertising those views.

“It restricts people’s ability to participate in the process,” said Frances Draper, who heads up the Boulder Economic Council, referring to city ordinance 13-3-3, “Contributions by City Contractors.”

The ordinance says it’s illegal for city contractors “directly or indirectly to make any contribution of money or other things of value, or to promise expressly or implied to make any such contribution to any candidate or committee or to any person for any political purpose or use in any city election.”

The Boulder Economic Council has a $24,000 annual contract with the city to work on economic vitality issues. The council ran afoul of the ordinance two years ago, when its members had to take back a $10,000 donation they’d made to an issue committee fighting a ballot measure that would have required voters to approve new annexations.

That was a clear violation of the law, because the group spent money on political advocacy.

But because the ordinance bans contractors from contributing, even indirectly, a “thing of value,” Draper and others worry a broadcast e-mail sent from their office could be construed as material support for a ballot issue — and as a violation of the law.

Draper said the law itself doesn’t really make sense, because it bars all contractors from making contributions — even on ballot issues that have no relation to their business.

“It’s probably broader than anyone intended,” she said. “At this juncture, we really should be looking more at what you want to constrain your contractors from doing, and doing it in a way that doesn’t really infringe upon their right to participate in the political process.”

Jerry Gordon, Boulder’s city attorney, said the ordinance isn’t meant to prohibit “expressive” conduct. It would almost certainly prevent a chamber employee from spending hours scouring databases to target likely voters, for example, but it probably doesn’t hamper the group’s employees from simply sharing their views.

“If it’s pure expression — if they’re saying, ‘Our view is such and such,’ and that’s all they do — I think the argument would be that they’re not making a contribution of a thing of value,” he said. “But having said that, no complaint or case has been referred to me. We would review any complaint based on the facts presented.”

City Councilman Ken Wilson said he’s sympathetic to the idea that the ordinance might be written too broadly.

“It sounds like it is a little crude and should be sharpened a little,” he said.

Steve Pomerance, a former city councilman who’s been critical of the city’s economic redevelopment efforts, said he agrees that Boulder’s ordinance might be too broad. But, he said, its limits should apply directly to the Economic Council and the Chamber of Commerce.

On its Web site, the Chamber of Commerce lists its support for several ballot issues, including one that allows the City Council to meet in secret to discuss real estate issues and another that would give the city the authority to enter into 40-year leases. Pomerance said business interests would benefit from both of those issues passing.

“They lobby the city to affect city policies,” he said. “And if they’re a consultant, they’re providing information and analysis on which those same policies are based, and it’s hard to imagine a more obvious conflict of interest.”