If countless political TV ads

annoy you, this will bother you even more: You help pay for those ads, explains columnist Scott Maxwell.

For the next four months, turning on your TV will be like a lot like beating yourself over the head with a frying pan.

Regardless of whether you want to watch sports, “60 Minutes” or “The Big Bang Theory,” commercial breaks will be filled with campaign ads … nasty, mean-spirited and factually flawed campaign ads.

Did you know this candidate favors AMNESTY???

This other guy? He’s been in office since Nebuchadnezzar was in preschool.

It’ll be enough for you to want to take the frying pan to the TV.

But here’s something even more annoying: You help pay for many of the ads.

Yes, you. Even if you’ve never donated a nickel to a candidate in your life.

That’s because Florida has something called “Public Campaign Finance,” which lets candidates for statewide office snatch up your tax dollars to run their campaigns.

And snatch they do. In the last two cycles, candidates took more than $10 million for their campaigns.

Many are professional politicians. Democrat Charlie Crist and Republican Adam Putnam took more than $1 million each.

And some have the audacity to rant about welfare and public assistance for others.

So $275 a week in unemployment benefits … that needs to be screamed about.

But $1,046,404 in campaign subsidies, that’s OK.

That’s how much Putnam alone took in his last two cycles — enough to pay about 3,800 weeks’ worth of unemployment.

He is the only candidate to ask for these subsidies for the last three cycles. But he’s certainly not alone this year. Fellow Republican Ron DeSantis and Democrats Andrew Gillum and Gwen Graham all filed recent paperwork saying they want taxpayers to help fund their gubernatorial campaigns.

The major candidates who haven’t are Democrats Jeff Greene, Chris King and Phillip Levine, who are helping bankroll their own campaigns — which precludes them for tapping the money anyway.

Like many flawed government programs, this one started with noble intentions. It was meant to help candidates who aren’t funded by special interests compete against those who are — or against wealthy pols who can finance their own campaigns.

But through the years, politicians did what they often do … they screwed it up.

Candidates used to be allowed to access this money only if they limited their spending to a few million dollars. Now they can raise more than $25 million and still qualify for public assistance. That’s nuts. Obviously a politician who’s rolling around in that much cash isn’t destitute.

Even worse, the law lets politicians take money when they don’t

even have any real competition — which defeats the entire point.

In 2014, for instance, Putnam and CFO Jeff Atwater were both powerful incumbents running against virtual nobodies. They were so flush with campaign donations, they outraised their Democratic challengers by 100-to-1.

Yet both still asked taxpayers to help fund their campaigns — to the tune of $875,000 between the two of them.

It’s welfare of the worst kind — for people who don’t need it.

In the battle of the mighty vs. the meek, you subsidize the mighty.

Last year, House Speaker Richard Corcoran called for an end to the system — and I cheered for reform.

He blasted the politicians who take this money, saying: “You really have to be clueless or just plain selfish to accept money from our state coffers that could go to our schoolchildren, first responders, or be put back in the pockets of our taxpayers.”

This year, Corcoran endorsed Putnam.

Some well-meaning people believe the system is worth saving. I’m not so sure. But if it is, it needs major reform.

Real reform would limit overall contributions and cut campaign season in half. Give everyone a few bucks, a few months and let them make their best case. If voters have to actually do some research, instead of relying on TV ads, all the better.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it virtually impossible to regulate private money given to campaigns.

But we can regulate the public money that candidates get.

Legislators should lower spending limits. No candidate with $25 million in campaign cash — or who runs a separate committee that takes unlimited donations — should also be able to access public funds.

Right now, taxpayers subsidize candidates who also run “political committees” that take donations of $100,000 and $200,000 at a time.

That’s just a joke — one that’s not funny and for which you pay the tab.