A man decides he wants to run for the office of dogcatcher. He takes $10 from his cash reserves and has fliers printed up that he quietly hands out on the corner. Another man decides to challenge him, so he takes $50 from his much larger fund and has four-color glossy pamphlets printed. He takes another $50 and buys a bullhorn. Then he stands on the corner making so much noise that his competitor can't be heard. It may be an exercise of free speech, but it certainly isn't fair.
Here's a true story from a "meet the candidates" night at a club I belonged to 20 years ago. I asked a question about public campaign finance and got an evasive non-answer. After the television cameras were off and people were filing out, the candidate said to me, "The money given to my campaign doesn't influence my vote. It just gives the donors access to my office."
The candidate didn't get that such an arrangement is just the problem. People without large sums to donate do not have equal access to their representatives and never will as long as special interests dominate campaign finance.
So in answer to the fair question of, "Why would I want my tax dollars used to support an idea that I oppose?" I say it is not about the individual candidate's or party's ideas. It's about fair and equal presentation of the opposing ideas.
Yes, I would gladly let my tax dollars support the opposition as long as it is done in a way that reduces the corrupting influence of special interests.
Dave Koschnick
Cohoes