The central pro-democracy argument against IEs is that they create "dependence corruption"—a systemic distortion where elected officials become dependent on wealthy donors and corporate interests rather than accountable to ordinary voters. Unlike traditional quid pro quo bribery, this operates structurally by making candidates reliant on massive private financing to remain competitive, fundamentally changing who they serve. This reflects the Framers' broader understanding of corruption as "the self-serving use of public power for private ends" driven by dependent relationships with concentrated wealth. The result is a democratic system where a few hundred mega-donors can determine electoral outcomes, undermining the foundational principle that every citizen should have an equal voice in shaping government direction.

Beyond dependency, unlimited independent expenditures can "drown out" democratic deliberation by saturating voters' informational environments to the point where opposing viewpoints are effectively silenced. In the digital era, massive spending buys targeted communication tools that can completely block opponents' messages from reaching voters, eliminating the political reflection essential to democratic citizenship. Outside organizations spending vast sums remain wholly unaccountable to voters, and research demonstrates that candidate favorability drops significantly when voters learn about super PAC support—even when candidates align with voters on policy—because citizens across the political spectrum lose faith when they perceive the system as captured by special interests. This combination erodes both the reality and appearance of democratic accountability, replacing government responsive to citizens with government responsive to funders.