[vojta_letal]

> 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...

[Bendingo]

> 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

[whatthesmack]

> 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.