Fake Signatures and ‘Good-Faith Letters’ Fuel a Lucrative Campaign Haul

When an unheralded candidate for the State Assembly submitted a six-figure request for matching funds under New York’s new public campaign finance system, it came with glaring red flags.

Of nearly 300 contribution cards turned in by the candidate, Dao Yin, only nine had donors’ phone numbers or email addresses as required under the system’s guidelines.

The lack of compliance caused the state Public Campaign Finance Board to initially reject Mr. Yin’s request for most of the matching funds tied to cash contributions, records obtained by The New York Times show. But in April, the board threw Mr. Yin a lifeline, allowing him to submit copies of “good-faith letters,” documenting his supposed attempt to obtain the missing information from the donors.

The board soon sent him $162,800 in matching campaign funds, the eighth-highest amount awarded to a State Assembly candidate running this year. The board said no other state candidate has used the good-faith letters; neither Mr. Yin nor regulators provided any evidence that he had sent them to any of the donors in question.

Mr. Yin’s impressive haul reflects what appeared to be a formidable number of small campaign contributions, most of them in cash. But an investigation by The Times this month found potential examples of fraud in his campaign disclosures. Nineteen of Mr. Yin’s supposed cash donors said they did not know him or had not given him money. (The Times has since identified seven more supposed cash donors to Mr. Yin who said they had not given to him.)

A closer look at the donor cards revealed another troubling flaw: At least 13 had fraudulent signatures, according to a review of the cards and interviews with some of the supposed donors.