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?