End of the day, politics is a numbers game and moralizing over the typeface of a letter that at worst ends up in the junk heap is the last thing worth even an iota of energy getting comparatively upset about.
If someone feels so strongly about slick typeface maneuvers to get voters opening an envelope, I'd encourage that person to run for office themselves and make outlawing that sort of activity a campaign promise and let us know how it goes.
So he starts his political career with a clever font hack, a little fib to his potential voters. Apparently not worth an iota of concern. So what's the next fib? Perhaps a broken election promise that he never intended to keep, just playing the numbers game? And so it may continue.
We always complain about our politicians looking after their own interests first. If we just shrug when they start their career like this, treating the electorate as a group to be tricked and fooled into action, is it any wonder?
And then you get to the end and it's got a donation form to give to the party, so that they can do everything you filled out in the survey. Probably very effective for many party members who don't think about it deeply.
Now, does that sort of campaign marketing material present a moral problem? I think it's just good marketing.
We could make a broader point about how all marketing wants you to envision yourself with [product / experience / political leader] and how that will make your life better. Is it all lies? Mostly. Is it immoral? Nah, it's just marketing :-)
Having said that, I think the ethics of this political strategy depends on the intentions. If a politician has true respect for the people, wants to give personal touch, and just doesn't have enough time to handwrite the letters - that's okay in my view. If a politician is purely looking for means of influence - that in my opinion is "not okay".
The "handwriting hack" is all about getting people to open the letter and read it. I didn't get phone calls from constituents because of the handwriting, the phone calls were because of the content.
The comment is valid, I don't think your premise is valid because I don't think the lines were sufficiently drawn to either a prescriptive or descriptive concept established in law. I also think the "ethical" premise is invalid equally.
I'm allowed to think premises are invalid and speak up on them; as of yet there hasn't been a convincing enough argument towards the 'ickiness' of using handwritten typefaces in a letter to possible voters to convince me otherwise.
If you're going to sit there and call that cynical, fine. That's on you, but I still think both premises are broken.
Thanks for telling us about what you did campaigning as a politician, and keep it coming.
The truth we learn is worth a lot more than ad hominem moraliziing.
It is common practice to use handwriting fonts to increase the response rate of mail. It is easy to discern that they are fonts. I just made it much harder to discern.