Overall I found your response rather cynical. Implying law being broken is required for a previous comment to be a valid point is harsh.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.