But when you say "independent campaigns," what you're really talking about is "independent campaigns that happen to attract the attention of very rich people."

But when you say "independent campaigns," what you're really talking about is "independent campaigns that happen to attract the attention of very rich people." Most would-be independent candidates don't get that, and are consequently unable to compete against the candidates (independent or otherwise) who do attract high-dollar donors. There's an undeniable bias in which candidates ultimately get selected as a consequence. If that bias favors the kinds of insurgent candidates you tend to favor, lucky for you I guess, but I'm not sure how that supports the argument that this is good for democratic processes generally.