EL DORADO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, Campaign finance disclosures filed with the California Fair Political Practices Commission show Committee to Elect Gina Posey Supervisor – 2026 raised more than $10,000 in contributions during the first four months of 2026 while relying heavily on local donors and candidate-funded loans to support an early campaign push for the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors District 4 seat.
The Form 460 filing, covering Jan. 1 through April 18, reported $10,397.86 in monetary contributions, $5,000 in loans received from candidate Gina Posey and $608.22 in nonmonetary contributions, according to campaign disclosures publicly available through California campaign finance records.
The campaign also reported $6,054.28 in expenditures during the reporting period, with the bulk of spending tied to campaign literature, signs, filing fees and printed outreach materials.
Among the campaign’s largest contributors were Michael Posey of Shingle Springs, who donated $3,000, and Rescue resident Judith Spaletta, who contributed a combined $3,000 across three separate donations. Cameron Park business owner Monte Osborne, listed as owner of A-Total Fire Protection Co., contributed a combined $2,503.86.
Most donations originated from within El Dorado County communities, including Shingle Springs, Rescue, Cameron Park, Garden Valley, Pilot Hill and El Dorado Hills.
The filings also showed Gina Posey personally loaned the campaign a total of $7,000, including a new $5,000 loan reported during the latest filing period. No loan repayments were reported.
The campaign’s spending patterns reflected a largely traditional local ground campaign operation.
The largest expenditure reported was $2,413.13 paid to El Dorado Press for campaign literature and mailings. Additional expenditures included filing fees paid to the El Dorado County Elections Department, printing costs through FedEx and digital advertising purchased through Facebook.
The filings showed limited spending on consulting, polling, television or radio advertising, suggesting a campaign strategy centered on direct voter outreach and locally produced campaign materials.
Posey’s campaign website describes her platform as focused on rural preservation, public safety, wildfire preparedness and county fiscal management.
“I don’t believe in sitting on the sidelines,” Posey said on the campaign website. “If something is worth speaking up about, it’s worth taking action.”
Posey is running for the District 4 supervisor seat representing communities that include Shingle Springs, Rescue, and surrounding foothill areas.
California campaign committees raising or spending more than $2,000 are required to file regular financial disclosures under FPPC rules.
Readers can review campaign filings through the FPPC Search Filings database or through the campaign’s official website, Posey4Supervisor.com.
The campaign committee for candidate Gina Posey — Committee to Elect Gina Posey Supervisor – 2026 — reported fundraising activity covering the period from January 1, 2026, through April 18, 2026, under California Form 460 filings.
Fundraising Overview
The committee reported:
- Itemized monetary contributions: $10,103.86
- Unitemized contributions under $100: $294.00
- Total monetary contributions received: $10,397.86
The filing also shows:
- Total expenditures made: $6,054.28
- Ending cash on hand: $16,664.92
Largest Contributions
The largest donors during the reporting period included:
- Michael Posey, retired, of Shingle Springs — $3,000
- Judith Spaletta, retired, of Rescue — $3,000 total across three separate $1,000 donations
- Monte Osborne, owner of A-Total Fire Protection Co., Cameron Park — $2,503.86 total across two contributions
Other Reported Donors
Additional contributors included:
- Bev Anderson of Shingle Springs — $500
- Liz and Bruce Drummond of Shingle Springs — $200
- Fred Ott of Shingle Springs — $200
- Mary Corrigan of Lemont, Illinois — $100
- Baer Bartley of Lafayette — $100
- Linda Fuller of Shingle Springs — $100
- Ken Calhoun of Pilot Hill — $100
- Tamara Johnston of Garden Valley — $100
- William Woodruff of El Dorado Hills — $100
Geographic Pattern
Most contributions originated from within El Dorado County communities including:
- Shingle Springs
- Rescue
- Cameron Park
- Pilot Hill
- Garden Valley
- El Dorado Hills
Only two listed donors came from outside the county:
- Mary Corrigan of Illinois
- Baer Bartley of Contra Costa County
Financial Snapshot
The committee entered the reporting period with substantial existing funds and closed the period with more than $16,000 cash on hand, indicating the campaign remains financially positioned for continued election activity heading deeper into the 2026 supervisor race.
Schedule B — Loans Received
The committee reported two personal loans from candidate Gina Posey:
- $5,000 loan incurred June 23, 2025
- Outstanding balance entering the reporting period: $2,000
- Remaining balance at close of period: $2,000
- $5,000 loan incurred February 20, 2026
- Entire $5,000 received during this reporting period
- Outstanding balance at close of period: $5,000
Loan Summary
- Total loans received this period: $5,000
- Total loan repayments or forgiveness: $0
- Outstanding candidate loans remaining: $7,000
The filings indicate the campaign carried all loan debt forward without repayment during the reporting window.
Schedule C — Nonmonetary Contributions
The committee also disclosed $608.22 in nonmonetary, or “in-kind,” contributions:
- Kirk Graves of Shingle Springs
- Donated campaign sign supplies valued at $327.66
- Manny Soriano of Somerset
- Donated campaign materials valued at $280.56
Combined Financial Picture
When combining:
- $10,397.86 in monetary contributions
- $5,000 in candidate loans received
- $608.22 in nonmonetary support
…the campaign reported access to more than $16,000 in total incoming financial support and resources during the filing period.
The disclosures show the campaign was heavily supported by:
- Local individual donors,
- Personal financing from the candidate herself,
- And grassroots in-kind assistance from supporters providing campaign materials and sign supplies.
Additional filings for Committee to Elect Gina Posey Supervisor – 2026 reveal that the campaign relied not only on direct donations, but also on candidate loans and in-kind support during the reporting period ending April 18, 2026.
Schedule B — Loans Received
The committee reported two personal loans from candidate Gina Posey:
- $5,000 loan incurred June 23, 2025
- Outstanding balance entering the reporting period: $2,000
- Remaining balance at close of period: $2,000
- $5,000 loan incurred February 20, 2026
- Entire $5,000 received during this reporting period
- Outstanding balance at close of period: $5,000
Loan Summary
- Total loans received this period: $5,000
- Total loan repayments or forgiveness: $0
- Outstanding candidate loans remaining: $7,000
The filings indicate the campaign carried all loan debt forward without repayment during the reporting window.
Schedule C — Nonmonetary Contributions
The committee also disclosed $608.22 in nonmonetary, or “in-kind,” contributions:
- Kirk Graves of Shingle Springs
- Donated campaign sign supplies valued at $327.66
- Manny Soriano of Somerset
- Donated campaign materials valued at $280.56
Combined Financial Picture
When combining:
- $10,397.86 in monetary contributions
- $5,000 in candidate loans received
- $608.22 in nonmonetary support
…the campaign reported access to more than $16,000 in total incoming financial support and resources during the filing period.
The disclosures show the campaign was heavily supported by:
- Local individual donors,
- Personal financing from the candidate herself,
- And grassroots in-kind assistance from supporters providing campaign materials and sign supplies.
The expenditure filings for Committee to Elect Gina Posey Supervisor – 2026 show a campaign focused heavily on printed materials, signs, filing costs, and basic voter outreach during the reporting period from January 1 through April 18, 2026.
Overall Spending Summary
The campaign reported:
- Itemized expenditures: $5,701.25
- Unitemized expenditures under $100: $353.03
- Interest paid on loans: $0
- Total expenditures: $6,054.28
Largest Expenditures
The campaign’s largest single expenses were tied to campaign literature and ballot access:
| Vendor | Purpose | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| El Dorado Press | Campaign literature/mailers | $2,413.13 |
| EDC Elections Dept | Filing fees | $733.79 |
| Windfall | Literature | $680.00 |
| EDC Elections Dept | Candidate filing fee | $635.00 |
Spending Categories
The filings show expenditures concentrated in several core campaign functions:
Campaign Literature & Printing
A substantial share of spending went toward printed materials, flyers, cards, and literature:
- El Dorado Press — multiple payments totaling $2,760.08
- FedEx printing and card production — $402.95
- GotPrint campaign cards — $148.10
- Windfall literature expense — $680.00
Combined literature and printing-related expenses exceeded $3,900, representing the dominant spending category.
Signs & Campaign Materials
The campaign also spent on physical campaign infrastructure:
- Temu sign posts — $194.18
- Facebook ads categorized as campaign materials — $122.15
- El Dorado Press campaign paraphernalia — $111.00
Election Administration Costs
Payments to the El Dorado County Elections Department totaled:
- $1,393.79
These included:
- Candidate filing fees
- Voter rolls/data access
Vendor Breakdown
Major vendors included:
- El Dorado Press
- FedEx
- GotPrint
- El Dorado County Elections Department
Accrued Expenses (Unpaid Bills)
Schedule F showed minimal unpaid debt at the close of the reporting period.
- The campaign incurred and paid a $148.10 GotPrint expense during the same reporting cycle.
- Net accrued unpaid expenses reported at the end of the filing period were effectively $0.
Financial Interpretation
The expenditures portray a relatively traditional local campaign operation:
- Heavy emphasis on printed literature and physical outreach,
- Limited digital advertising,
- No large consultant or payroll expenses,
- No reported radio, television, polling, or professional campaign consulting costs.
The filings suggest a grassroots-style supervisor campaign relying more on local printing, volunteer support, and direct voter contact than on high-cost media or consultant-driven operations.
