Why should the person who gets the most private donations (aka, the candidate who is likely to represent special interests the tend to have different interests than the average American) be the one most likely to win?

Same with some rich person who can fund his/her own campaign. Shouldn't anyone have a chance to run for office, regardless of the size of their bank account?  The obvious answer is yes.

There are requirements of course, like in states where for public funding you have to get a certain number of small donations (say $5) and signatures to be eligible.  It's not like any fool can get this done.

People should pay because it will improve the quality of candidates for ALL parties. And look, if my taxes go toward a republican candidate who I disagree with I can still pretty much guarantee that the candidate born of public funding would be (far) better and less corrupt than a traditional republican candidate.

And look, of course some of my tax dollars go toward things I don't like, that's just how it works. 

Finally, I agree that it's scary how much of America is uninformed and misinformed.  To that end, I think there's a better chance that publicly funded candidates would push for real improvements in funding and quality of valuable programs, including education (k-12 and post secondary).

And a lot of people are uninformed, misinformed and apathetic precisely *because* we have corrupt, special interest driven candidates.  Public funding could be a huge wake-up call that every vote and every dollar *from an individual* DOES count, and that people need to pay attention. 

Could people still be manipulated by the media?  Yes, of course.  We need to work on that.  But there again, how likely are we to see someone stand up to media monopolies and concentration (Clinton was the opposite with his awful Telecom Act of 1996), things that clearly degrade the quality and diversity of our media?  I'd say not likely at all these days, but possibly with a publicly funded candidate it'd be different.