The California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) has been pulled into the heated San Luis Obispo County 4th District Supervisor race.
Incumbent South County Supervisor Jimmy Paulding issued a statement on Feb. 15 alleging that his opponent, Oceano business owner Adam Verdin, accepted money from local development firm Covelop Inc. that’s double the legal state limit.
“The contribution is disclosed on a campaign filing signed by Verdin on Jan. 29, 2026, certifying under penalty of perjury that the report was ‘true and complete,’” Paulding said in the statement. “There has been no public indication that the excess amount has been returned or otherwise remedied.”
The supervisor laid out his allegation in a formal complaint to the FPPC and submitted a copy to the SLO County District Attorney’s Office.
Shortly after assuming office in 2023, Paulding voted to decrease SLO County’s previous $25,000 cap on how much a single individual or entity could contribute to a campaign. He and other supervisors opted to match the state limit.
A single individual or entity can now contribute a maximum of $5,900 to one election campaign, according to the FPPC’s limit for 2025-26.
Verdin told New Times that Covelop’s payments were “perfectly lawful” because they are for different elections.
“The county did not modify the limit or create an entirely new law that would have created an overall $5,900 limit for a county supervisorial race of for 2026,” he said.
Verdin’s campaign finance filings show he received $11,800 from Covelop over four installments in 2025.
On Sep. 25, 2025, the firm made two separate payments of $2,950 to Verdin’s campaign earmarked for the 2026 primary election. At the time, the 4th District race had a third candidate—Family Paralegal Associates owner Tyler Brewer—also vying for the seat.
Two days after Covelop’s first set of payments, Brewer announced he was dropping out of the race and endorsing Verdin.
On Oct. 10, 2025, Covelop made two more payments of $2,950 to Verdin’s campaign—labeling the second total of $5,900 for the general election in November.
A third candidate could still enter the race and make way for a general election if they file all the required documents by March 6.
“By accepting the $5,900 general election contribution, our campaign may not spend the money until a general election,” Verdin said. “If no general election is required, state law provides for the return of the contribution to the donor or reallocation of the unused funds for a future campaign.”
He pointed to state Government Code Section 85301 that specified the contribution limits for a person donating to an election candidate applies “per election.”
“Supervisor Paulding must not have read the Verdin campaign report or does not understand the very state campaign law the county adopted in its own county ordinance 3487, that adopted the state law in 2023,” Verdin said.
Paulding has also criticized Verdin for accepting money from developers like Covelop, its in-house broker and general contractor Patrick Arnold, and NKT Commercial, which oversees the controversial Dana Reserve project.
In a Feb. 17 letter to New Times, Generation Build founder Michael Massey accused Paulding of spreading misinformation about Verdin’s alleged violation and creating a “pattern of political intimidation.”
“By publicly insinuating wrongdoing where none exists, Supervisor Paulding appears to be sending a message to local businesses and community members: support his opponent at your own risk,” Massey wrote. “The irony is also striking. Residents will recall how Paulding’s political influence was exercised in support of favored projects, including the controversial battery plant proposal in Nipomo, where Paulding’s backdoor maneuvering appears to have advanced the project despite substantial safety concerns.”
Massey claimed Generation Build would soon release a complaint alleging “political ethics violations and the improper use of taxpayer resources.”
Paulding told New Times that the election between him and Verdin would be decided in June, just as it was in 2018 and 2022 when he ran against former 4th District Supervisor Lynn Compton.
“[Verdin] is exploiting a loophole allowing him to accept double the developer money because, like Lynn Compton before him, his campaign is largely financed by big developers whose projects he has publicly supported and whose interests his campaign is designed to protect.” ∆
This article appears in Feb 19-26, 2026.
I think this article misses the actual story. A quick review of the County’s passage of Ordinance No. 3487, which established the campaign-finance limits and which Paulding voted for, shows that Verdin complied with the law. It also takes only a few minutes to confirm that Verdin correctly reported the $5,900 Primary 2026 limit and the $5,900 General 2026 limit on his California Form 460 filings (where donations are reported).
In addition, Tom Fulks, Paulding’s political advisor, was informed of all of this before they filed the complaint. In other words, the campaign knew the allegation was false and proceeded anyway.
Given those facts, it is difficult to understand why an obviously false accusation that can be disproven with five minutes of research is being treated as even remotely credible.
The actual story is that Paulding deliberately advanced a claim that he knew was untrue, undermining confidence in election integrity for political gain. It is inappropriate and wrong. Its Trumpian and it warrants scrutiny rather than amplification.