> is that an American spent his money how he liked

Caps on campaign spending are there for reasons. A campaign should contribute to meaningful public discourse. Nothing more.

> the American media is free enough to have reported on it

Private media can be biased. Either explicitly (lying to peoples faces), or implicitly (self-censorship on stuff related to the owner). Surprisingly, in several countries - such as Britain or Czech Republic - state-owned media are the one sticking to higher values.

> American citizens are now well-informed enough to know that some of the folks they talk to online are paid, and the American election will be based on the interactions of a free people

Well, there are multiple studies in several countries which show the opposite. Quick google search yields one such https://thehill.com/homenews/media/392870-pew-study-finds-am...

> Britain [...] state-owned media are the one sticking to higher values

I wouldn't be too sure about that.

Amusingly, in the search results below, BBC themselves report on their own secret links to the state security establishment.

[0] https://www.google.com/search?q=bbc+used+mi5+to+vet+staff

> Private media can be biased. Either explicitly (lying to peoples faces), or implicitly (self-censorship on stuff related to the owner). Surprisingly, in several countries - such as Britain or Czech Republic - state-owned media are the one sticking to higher values.

If you can show evidence of this, I’d be interested. I’m pretty sure that /all/ media can be biased, and is. The BBC is no different or better than Fox News. They both share the news from their perspective.

> American citizens are now well-informed enough to know that some of the folks they talk to online are paid

I'm curious: How do you think that Americans can be well informed in a system that actively attempts to feed them disinformation by a series of interested parties that have down to a science how to switch public opinion and humungous budgets?

I'm not claiming that it's impossible for a single person to be well informed, mind you; I'm simply saying that it's pretty clear that the efforts to keep people misinformed are giant, becoming stronger by the day as technology advances and with no significant opposing force. I can't see how anyone can see that trend and think it's not going to have a harmful effect on society.

I agree with you, but I think it's a very debatable problem as to whether addressing the result (money buying influence in politics) or the source (voter education) is a better plan of action.

Unintended consequences abound, should Citizens United be fully overturned and financing be more tightly policed. Maybe those are good, maybe they're bad.

Personally, a 50% tax on any political speech spending, dedicated to funding voter media literacy and education, seems like a better approach.

Give everyone the freedom to speak, but teach everyone to listen critically.

There are many issues with that.

Many voters don't have the time to spend on political education, nor the interest - I actually think the lack of free time is an issue in a democracy, and it's why elderly people are such an active demographic during elections

And the elephant in the room is that propaganda works even on informed people. Just making a name familiar to you is money well spent for marketers, even if you don't buy the claims of the ad it's still an advantage.

Media is designed to be addictive in our days. We should start treating it for what it is - if something disguising as news is actively attempting to evoke an emotional response for the reader/listener to get them hooked, that thing is harmful and not a public service (state funded or not). I don't have a solution, but I do think that at some point in the future we'll look at clickbait and disguised ads the same way we look at tobacco or asbestos now.

And yet in most countries people are able to find substantial amounts of time for education in the first ~18 years of their lives.

There's time for voter education, that's currently not being used.

As to malicious media, I hesitate to advocate censorship before I can come up with an unambiguous, simple test of what qualifies.

Right the media is 'free' enough to report on it... Krystal Ball, Cenk, TYT, sure they HAVE talked about it, but the major netwroks like CNN and MSNBC? Not really, if they did he might not get so far, and then would stop literally throwing cash at them by buying ads. Public funding of elections needs to end, and Bloomberg is literally showing what's possible.

You make it sound as if the problem is a media that is disinterested in publishing real stories. Maybe we need new mainstream media organizations?

That's because TYT has a really smart lady host, you wouldn't find everyone reporting on it.