The Chapel Hill Town Council is to vote on Monday on whether public funds should be used to finance our local elections. They should vote against this law.

The debate over whether our local elections should be publicly funded using our tax money really comes down to the issue of free speech. The founders of our Constitution wanted our free speech protected, especially political speech. Today, every group, no matter how vile, has its speech protected. Why would we want to restrict ourselves in this way during a political campaign?

That's exactly what will happen if candidates were restricted to spending a set amount of money for campaigns.

Who could resist accepting $3,000 from the town? But if you did, the amount of money you could spend would be limited. If your signs were torn down, you might not be able to spend money to replace them.

The program is voluntary. However, I believe there will be moral and political pressure for candidates to participate. Those who do not will be stigmatized by the press and accused of "buying the election." In the meantime, the press is free to continue to advocate for its preferred candidates. Also, the less money a challenger can spend, the more likely an incumbent will get re-elected.

In Chapel Hill, it's not about rich people having influence; it's about squelching the possibility of dissenters getting elected to the Town Council. There's not a liberal in the country who's worried about George Soros getting too much influence from the tens of millions that he spends on politics.

The handful of people who run the county politically, such as the Sierra Club or the Democrat Party, essentially will pick the candidates who are on our Town Council if the law is passed. They'll send out an e-mail for the candidates they anoint and the contributions will roll in.

Candidates who are moderates, genuine independents, Republicans or newcomers will have a much more difficult time getting the 75 financial contributions needed to qualify for matching public funds. So, in effect, it is a daunting hurdle.

It would be another unnecessary burden to the taxpayer. I know I wouldn't want my tax dollars supporting a candidate whose views I totally disagreed with.