Thank you for your response, Harvey. I realize that money is being made by non-profit groups. However, those funds are typically funneled back into programs and services for the recipients they are serving, so to speak. Their non-profit status dictates, to a large degree, how they can use their money.
I am not opposed to supporting a for-profit company. However, I am opposed to what library customers, as major consumers of journal subscriptions, consider excessive, unfair, and unsustainable profit margins. A tiered system of support would not be to “punish” individuals who choose to publish with a for-profit publisher; it would be one means of continuing to offer financial assistance but perhaps ensuring a mutual responsibility for paying an APC or an OA option. Sure, it’s important what faculty “think,” which is, I guess you mean, the value they place on their journal choice.
Regarding your comment about censorship, I think that is not applicable in this context. An individual can publish wherever they want and provide access to their content to whomever they want (although, using your definition, they are censoring their own work when they publish behind a pay wall or sign away their copyrights).
As part of a partially state-supported public institution, we are accountable for spending funds the public and our institution entrust to us in the most responsible way possible. If denying support for an APC that results in double-spending is censorship, then we are guilty. One could even argue this is “triple spending” because faculty authors are being compensated with state funds, in our case, to conduct research & write articles, which are then either given freely to, or one pays, a publisher to publish. There is definitely something wrong with that model.