Supervisor Paulding tried to bust his opponent. Now he should apologize | Opinion

Supervisor Jimmy Paulding stepped in it.

He failed to do his due diligence before accusing his District Four opponent, Adam Verdin, of violating election law — a sloppy look for an incumbent, especially since Paulding is an attorney.

Paulding (prematurely) raised a red flag when he saw that Verdin had accepted two large contributions from Covelop, a local real estate development company.

All told, Covelop gave Verdin $11,800 — double the $5,900 allowed under state election law.

When Paulding saw that, he pounced.

He issued a news release, alerted the District Attorney’s Office and filed a complaint with the state Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) seeking “an investigation into what appears to be a serious violation of local campaign finance law.”

Except, the FPPC found that Verdin had done nothing wrong.

His campaign disclosure forms noted that half the Covelop money was intended for the primary campaign — noted by a “P” in the appropriate column — and the other half for the November general election — “G” — should a run-off be necessary.

As noted in a letter from the FPPC, that is allowed under the state’s Political Reform Act.

Yet Paulding is not backing down.

“This is about transparency for the voters of District Four, and I’m glad that I filed this complaint, because it’s creating that transparency,” he told The Tribune.

And he does not plan to apologize.

A rookie mistake or deliberate move?

This seems, at best, a rookie mistake by Paulding, or perhaps a careless move coupled with a serious underestimation of Verdin’s team.

Not everyone is buying that, however. Some — including Verdin — see it as an ugly smear campaign that backfired.

Generation Build, a local housing advocacy organization, was among those lashing out at the supervisor.

“His decision to present lawful, disclosed contributions as improper is not a misunderstanding. This is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public,” it wrote in a news release.

Whether this misstep affects Paulding’s chances in this closely watched race is another story.

He has the power of the incumbency behind him, together with a strong base of passionate supporters who have backed him ever since he first ran for supervisor in 2018, losing to incumbent Lynn Compton by just 60 votes.

What’s more, this is a highly partisan race; Paulding’s supporters are strongly motivated by the desire to retain a liberal majority on the Board of Supervisors.

Here’s how much the candidates have raised

Paulding is slightly ahead of Verdin in fundraising; he reported $233,006 in contributions for 2025, mostly in small donations in the $100 range. He ended the year with a cash balance of $178,275.

Verdin raised $164,490, ending with just under $137,000.

Verdin reported some large donations from builders — including $5,900 from the developers of the controversial Dana Reserve project in Nipomo.

Paulding has been highly critical of those donations, going so far as to bring them to the attention of the FPPC.

“Mr. Verdin accepted maximum or near-maximum donations from multiple development-linked donors with active interests in county land use decisions,” he wrote in his complaint letter.

If Paulding’s campaign strategy is to paint certain developers as the bad guys — and Verdin as their lackey — that’s his call to make.

But falsely accusing a candidate of breaking the law and then failing to admit the mistake goes too far.

Supervisor Paulding would to well to save his campaign rhetoric for the voters — and leave the DA and the FPPC out of it.

This story was originally published February 20, 2026 at 5:00 AM.