I find there's something totally warped and bizarre about this defence.
If I found out that I had been unknowingly funded by a fascistic foreign regime in an attempt to influence an election using disinformation, I would probably think "Oh god, I need to seriously challenge my opinions and check the sources of my information more thoroughly."
But these guys are saying, "We're the victims, we didn't know the money was Russian or that we were spreading disinformation. There was no editorial interference in our content at all."
So let me get this straight, you're claiming that Putin was sat there going, "10/10, no notes, great content Dave" and... that is somehow... better, why? They are admitting to being useful idiots who spread disinformation
voluntarily and claiming this exonerates them.
Your motivation matters not, ethically the end result is exactly the same. To come out with a defence like this suggests they are either mendacious, or dangerously stupid. Pick one.