Election Interference

A Definition in Perspective

Election interference is a popular phrase in the current media landscape, but what does it mean? When does it happen? Who can do it? While on the surface the phrase seems simple to define or understand, the further you dive into the nuances of its use, the more questions of definition arise. The simple definition ‘efforts to change the outcome of an election” as found through a simple Google search does not begin to dissect the phrase accordingly. The interpretation of the phrase changes depending on the perspective of the interference.

Following the controversial Presidential election in 2016, the United States Senate and the Department of Justice, through a special counsel’s office, opened separate investigations into whether Russia attempted to interfere with the process in favor of one candidate over the other. This led to the phrase “Election Interference” being catapulted to the top of political vocabulary. The phrase would go on to appear over seventy times in the ensuing Mueller Report stemming from the special counsel (Allsop), and since then, the phrase has been used by many people in the world of politics and media in different contexts.

The interference from Russia in 2016 centered around the circulation of misinformation on social media platforms through trolls and bots, as well as the leaking of campaign workers’ private emails. According to the Cyber Defense Review, election interference has now become a growing concern globally. The use of information warfare tactics to spread false information online was an unprovoked act by the Russian government with the direct intent to influence the outcome of the 2016 election. In their report, Lieutenants Joseph Zuccarelli and Nico Manzonelli, recent West Point graduates and current Harvard students, argue due to the effectiveness of the Russian influence “election interference is becoming an IW vulnerability that democratic countries must safeguard against.” This theory of definition would define the act by creating or embellishing content to create a narrative of conversation around a candidate intended to create a negative perception of that candidate. From the Russian perspective their actions are patriotic, as they are acting in the perceived best interest of their own country, an act the United States is no stranger to in our history. Whether it involves Iran in the 1950s or Central American revolutions during the Cold War, our country’s State Department has historically interfered with governments around the world acting with our own best interest in mind.

One repeated user of the phrase is former President Donald Trump, often referring to his recent and ongoing criminal prosecutions as interfering on the election of 2024. This would imply the ‘Trumpian’ definition of the phrase to be anything said about or done to a declared candidate for office with the intention of affecting the perception of the candidate qualifies as interference. Since a lot of what is said about Trump is based in fact, his theory of definition would then have to include even factual statements made about a candidate that could be perceived as negative.

On the famous dark day in American history, January 6th, 2021, the overall goal of the rioters and the at-the-time President was to interfere in the certification of an election. While the vast majority of criminal charges stemming from the incident focus on insurrection and stopping an official procedure, this was an attempted act of interference (DOJ). But interference alone is not a crime until it becomes election tampering, which, according to the FBI, can be punishable by three to fifty years in prison, depending on the severity of the situation. Anything short of the illegal act of actual tampering could then be considered just election activity designed to sway the opinion of a voter, and therefore interference is not only legally allowed, but socially acceptable.

In 2024, the State of Washington’s Attorney General, Bob Ferguson, as a candidate for Governor, sued the state elections board to have his name moved to the top of the list during the democratic primary. While a conspicuous act on the surface, his failed attempt was to separate him from the other Bob Fergusons on the ballot, the ones recruited by an operative from the other party to throw a wrench in the campaign of a political enemy (Allsop). This example brings up a critical issue in the current political climate. At what point does political tricker become election tampering?

Akin to the days of Lee Atwater and the Willie Horton commercial, or even the famous “daisy” ad by the Johnson campaign used against Goldwater in 1964, election trickery and attempts to influence voters have always existed. Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams are the ‘godfathers’ of the way candidates attempt to dissuade voters from their opponent as they battled through the 1820’s. In 1964 CIA infiltrated the Goldwater campaign and frequently photocopied memos on strategy, forwarded them to Johnson's campaign (Usdin). This type of activity leading up to an election has persisted since Presidential contests first became political fights involving media narratives.

Attempting to influence the outcome of democratic elections is as old as democracy itself, but does it work? We see billions of dollars poured into the media markets, local news broadcasts inundated with campaign commercials on the hope that positive or negative information on a candidate being blasted into your face at the speed of light just on the chance it will affect the outcome. Evidence of this can be seen looking back at the 2020 election cycle as 15.1 billion dollars was spent between the Presidential and Congressional elections (OpenSecrets.com). With the amount of noise and conversations in the media and online in our current age, the chance to dissuade a voter that has already made a decision is nearly impossible. We have an echo chamber media landscape allowing the electorate to consume only information that confirms their already established opinions. This only leaves the disengaged portion of voters, the ones who hear the noise and check out.

There is no direct definition for the phrase election interference, only interpretations. To each individual, the term takes on a unique definition, pertaining to their desired outcome of the election they believe is being interfered with. If “John Smith” is a candidate for office and the opponent has tipped the media on something that will hurt the campaign, Smith’s campaign would consider this interference, however, to the opponent's staff, the move would be considered part of the duties of a political operative. The grey area of perception is what makes the term election interference almost indefinable. The real definition is in the eye of the beholder, or the one being interfered with. Election interference is a fallacy, it doesn’t really exist, it’s really all just noise.