The concept of hybrid warfare came under the spotlight after the Russian - Ukrainian crisis in 2014. Several analysis anticipated the then forthcoming wave of “election operations” covering the 2016 Presidential elections in the United States and the “Russiagate”, the 2016 Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom, the 2017 Catalan independence referendum, the rejection in Italy of the 2017 constitutional referendum and its 2018 elections and in the end the 2019 European elections. While there is a multitude of studies and essays about election meddling, the hijacking of democracies and the “tools” as media manipulations used for such purposes, the “effects dimension” of electoral interferences is still awaiting a full assessment. At this purpose, the paper notes the significant “dissonance” between, on one side, alarming reports by intelligence, researchers and Think tanks and, on the other side, the reductive reactions and the “minimizing” approach by the targeted States. In the United States, the Congress has still to unravel the “Russiagate” and the investigation by the Special Counsel and the denialist approach apparently crossed the line of obstruction to justice. Furthermore, the origins of the investigations in the 2016 Presidential elections (the “Mueller investigation”) are currently … investigated on their own (the “Durham investigation”). The acknowledgment that the outcome of a democratic process has been derailed or subverted by foreign influence operations raise serious “legitimacy questions” and may challenge the authority of governments and parliamentary majorities which are fatally delegitimized. Even in the absence of reliable evidence about the effectiveness of influence tools, the public opinion may suspect that governments in charge, which profited from manipulative operations, is still conspiring with a foreign State and pursuing foreign interests. Spreading doubts and suspects may be a factor of success of foreign influence operations to a similar extent and eventually as an alternative goal, in respect of the return of supported candidates. Election meddling within a hybrid campaigns is often perceived as matter of military concern. The NATO Warsaw Summit Communique while recognizing that “primary responsibility to respond to hybrid threats or attacks rests with the targeted nation” declares that the Alliance prepared to assist an Ally “at any stage of a hybrid campaign”. The “at any stage” wording would have required an in deep analysis as it might dilute established boundaries between politics and the role of the military. The erosion of the demarcation line between what pertains to politics and what to the military could be, if not a side goal of influence operations. Once defined the context, the purpose of the paper is to synthetically resume the multi-faceted context of election influence operations (not necessarily attributable to the Russian federation and its proxies), the legal framework for such operations and to widen the discussion beyond those ordinarily involved in security and defense issue. At this purpose, it seems worth glancing at old constitutional practices and build upon the uninformed voters debate and the legal regime of undue influence and false statements relying on “fake news”. The solutions eventually offered of the latter and the possibility to “expand” concept of agency are worth being exploited in order to induce candidates to refrain from benefitting from influence operations. Building a legislation upon the said concepts could provide an alternative to the stretching of Campaign finance laws and bribery laws to encompass foreign support in the like of influence campaigns on social media or leaked information as receiving “anything of value”.