I'm having trouble tying Operation Gladio[0] to election interference. Also, spying is not the same as interfering.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

Staging terrorist operations against the standing President's policy and employing an influential figure on the left for fourty years isn't interference?

Spying on all the candidates serves what purpose that doesn't involve interference? To maintain a nice database of their positions? At best, they didn't interfere as things were already going their way.

I can call something bad without also calling it election interference.

Regarding spying, of course that serves purposes other than interference. Think of insider trading - you get the insider info not so that you can change the outcome if you don't like it, but so that you can make a profit on that outcome when it actually occurs.

>I can call something bad without also calling it election interference

That doesn't stop it from being interference. Major events like terrorist actions change voter opinion, and someone in control of a party's platform and agenda has a massive influence on an election.

What information are they profiting on? Does it seem like politicians spend the election period preparing their policy for when they win?

It’s actually not that unusual for allies to spy on each other.

Which doesn't stop it from being interference. Having that kind of information on every candidate makes it difficult for someone to support any position the CIA dislikes.

You have yet to prove the interference claim. You’re just hand waving away the gap between spying and interfering, and it’s not convincing.

The spying is interference, they don't have to do anything else. Having access to that information alone is enough to limit the potential positions any politician can hold. This isn't hand waving, people change their actions when they know they are being watched.

No, that’s hand waving. You’re asserting that spying = interference because reasons. Politicians always know they’re being watched by friend, foe, and constituent alike, because they’re politicians.

If you really believe that spying is interference, then you also believe that there’s never been a fair election ever.

Blackmail isn't unambiguous reasons, and you only need to look at the CIA's actions throughout the world to understand the threat. Very few elections even include anti-American candidates, and the few times that those candidates have won have led to regime change like the 1953 Iran coup, or constant threats of regime change, like post-Chavez Venezuela.

And no, I don't think many elections are overly fair.

Okay, blackmail is absolutely interference. But you need to actually prove that blackmail is happening. There are plenty of other reasonable explanations for why so many of our allies elect pro-American politicians: namely that we're their super power buddy that carries the burden of dealing with other super powers. Even when we go off the reservation a bit (like Iraq), it's still much easier for places like France to stick with us than ditch us.

>their super power buddy that carries the burden of dealing with other super powers.

"Do what we say, if you don't we'll punish you or you'll be forced to do what they say."

None of what you're describing particularly sounds like "free choice by the people." It's just been normalized so you don't see it as unusual or call it interference. As you say, the US is a super power. They aren't tasked with the burden of dealing with other super powers, they exert their power to maintain and further their position.

Oh, and when you look at the sheer volume of regime changes the CIA has been involved with, the blackmail becomes obvious. You know they're spying, you know what they're capable of and willing to do.