James Lesczynski entered the state Supreme Court recently and told Judge Paul Feinman, “I don’t want to pay for speech I object to.” The chair of Manhattan’s Libertarian Party was objecting to the city’s campaign finance rules that subsidize political campaigns with taxpayers’ dollars. This constitutes “coercive speech,” he told The New York Sun, and violates the free-speech clauses of the state and federal constitutions.

Mayor Bloomberg and the chairman of the city’s Campaign Finance Board, Frederick Schwarz Jr., in their official capacities, and the finance board and the city themselves, are the targets of Mr. Lesczynski’s complaint. Their lawyers reply that state governments are allowed under the Constitution to spend money this way and that the federal Supreme Court has reaffirmed this in the past. Both sides were only briefly presenting their oral arguments before the judge, who will over the next few months decide whether to allow the case to move to trial.

Mr. Lesczynski’s objection to the state socialism that exists under the mantra of “matching funds” is understandable. Instead of working for their money, the city’s politicians have passed laws – starting in 1988 and updated since – forcing taxpayers to pay for their political campaigns. All they have to do is raise some money first themselves – ranging from $5,000 for City Council races to $250,000 in mayoral. They are then given four-to-one matching funds – for every dollar they raise the taxpayers have to give them four. When facing “high spending” opponents, matching funds are increased to five-to-one when their opponent is spending more than $2,864,001, six-to-one for more than $17,184,001.

Matching funds were introduced because the politicians claimed they were “concerned” about the wealthy having too much influence over elections. But as Mr. Lesczynski told The New York Sun, “If you have a good campaign and ideas that are compelling, people will support you. If you need welfare, maybe the ideas aren’t so popular in the first place.” In 2001 – the last time there was a full slate of races across the city – $42 million in taxpayers’ money was doled out to candidates.

The city’s lawyers point to the 1976 federal Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo, where the court ruled that using tax revenues to fund campaigns does not violate First Amendment rights. Congress can spend money on what it deems the general welfare, even if it offends some. The court noted: “Every appropriation made by Congress uses public money in a manner to which some taxpayers object.”

The justice of Mr. Lesczynski’s argument will not be diminished by a finding that matching funds are constitutional. Just because an outlay is constitutional does not mean that it’s logical or fair – or good public policy. If Mr. Lesczynski fails in court there will still be the harder road, defeating these outrageous outlays in the Legislature. That’s democracy.