This is about arts funding in general, but we need a principle that tell us taxpayers aren’t wronged when elected representatives vote to fund the arts, resulting in offensive artworks. This isn't specific enough to strengthen.

Funding offensive art (a particular activity) is fine because the representatives are funding the arts overall (a general activity). This supports the idea that the legitimacy of the overall funding decision isn't negated by certain artworks being offensive.

We have no idea if most people support the arts. This can’t strengthen the argument because we don't know whether it applies. Besides, the columnist already stated that arts funding in general is within representatives' rights.

Sure, but the columnist isn’t talking about what voters should do. We need something that tells us taxpayers weren’t treated unjustly by the funding of offensive art. This doesn't help us with that goal.

Whether or not taxpayers have a right to complain is irrelevant. We need something that tells us they weren’t treated unjustly by their elected representatives in this particular situation, which is a different issue entirely.