In the beginning of March, conservative activist James O’Keefe made headlines after his non-profit organization, Project Veritas, released videos exposing two National Public Radio officials. In the undercover stint videos, two of O’Keefe’s lackeys pose as members of a fake Muslim Brotherhood Front Group and offer NPR executives a $5 million donation during a lunch meeting in Georgetown, D.C.

In the viral video, NPR executive Ron Schiller tells the supposed Muslims that the current Republican Party is "hijacked" by a group that’s "not just Islamophobic, but really xenophobic" and also suggests that the Tea Party movement is comprised of "some seriously, racist, racist people."

After the media had reported on the video sting, members of both the left and the right responded vigorously. Republicans began a campaign to cut federal funding for public broadcasting, and House Republicans fulfilled this agenda by successfully voting to cut NPR funding in Congress. However, left-leaning institutions such as Media Matters for America cite that O’Keefe made "deceptively edited videos."

Whether or not you agree with O’Keefe’s tactics or not, one thing is certain: broadcasting companies like NPR and PBS do not need our tax dollars.

The NPR and PBS controversy is not necessarily a political issue, but rather an economic, free-market issue. Putting aside any political leanings NPR may or may not have, there’s really no such thing as fair, free-market competition if one competitor is subsidized by the taxpayer’s dime and others are not. It wouldn’t matter whether or not NPR leaned left or right politically, the broadcasting company will always have the economic upper hand if it receives your tax dollars. With an economic recession still damaging companies across the United States, the executives at NPR need to realize that they have economic privilege over every private company just by receiving a portion of their funding from taxpayers.

According to NPR’s website, 5.8% of their funding comes from federal, state, and local governments and 10.1% comes from the federally-subsidized Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Although these percentages don’t constitute the majority of NPR’s funding, these grants amount to approximately $30 million total per year.

"Our product…is straight-shooting, factual and spends an enormous amount of money gathering news from all over the country and the world. Judge us by our product," stated NPR Legal Correspondent Nina Totenberg, defending NPR via Inside Washington.

But if NPR is such a great product, then won’t it be able to succeed without tax dollars? If NPR is so efficient in reporting the news, then can’t it operate fine without receiving annual gifts from the government? I think CNN, NBC, and Fox News are testaments to the ability of running a "great product" without receiving help from Uncle Sam.

Consider the popularity of NPR and PBS. According to Sesame Street’s non-profit organization, "Sesame Workshop," Sesame Street has approximately six million viewers each week. NPR’s website states that their audience is 12 million strong.

…And Ms. Totenberg still thinks that public broadcasting needs tax dollars to distribute such a "great product."

It is obvious that NPR and PBS are not in need of more funding. Even if they were in need, the federal government and state governments can’t pick favorites by distributing money to certain companies.

At the end of the day, NPR and PBS should be able to sink or swim just as much as any other private news organization can.