Did you get that flyer?

📪 Don't worry. There's more where they came from! 🤑

Let’s zoom out to Pennsylvania state politics today. Did you get a recent mailer about our upcoming Pennsylvania Supreme Court retention voting? If not, here’s what it looks like. It embodies the shady politics of the US today. 👎🏻

First, let’s talk about the flyer. Then we’ll discuss who sent it to you and what you should do about it.

🗳️ Yes, I’m going to ask you to vote in the election on November 4, 2025. Fire up those voting muscles.

What’s up with retention voting?

This November, three of Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Justices are up for retention. That means Pennsylvania voters get to decide whether those justices retain their jobs or if the seats open for partisan elections in 2027. This vote does nothing to establish or prevent a systematic policy shift around term limits for justices and judges in our state.

As noted in Ms. Magazine, “Retention elections offer a rare public check on judicial power, and are designed to promote judicial neutrality while ensuring accountability.” Retention elections are non-partisan and give Pennsylvania residents a direct, democratic voice on whether judges continue serving our state.

This article provides a deeper dive into retention elections and more information about each of the judges up for election (I found it incredibly helpful and believe it’s well worth the 5 minutes invested to read it). All three justices have been endorsed for retention by the nonpartisan Pennsylvania Bar Association.

Retention elections offer an interesting middle ground, allowing voters to provide input on justices while mitigating the partisan nature of regular elections and the influence of partisan interests on the judiciary. We could certainly use a lot less partisanship in our politics. Ugh…

What does the flyer mean?

Not exactly what it suggests. A misleading political mailer in your mailbox?! Are you surprised? Of course not. We love you, political PACs. 🫶🏻 (more on that below)

The flyer suggests you vote “no” to defend democracy and “protect your voice.” It implies, at a glance, that there are no term limits on Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices, and suggests a “yes “ vote to retain the judges gives up your voting voice. Neither of these is true.

The mere fact of a retention election is a term limit. The vote itself is using your voice. Each of the justices must win direct democratic approval from citizens to continue serving in their role. Moreover, statewide judicial seats have a mandatory retirement age of 75.

If you really study the mailer (and most people probably won’t), it doesn’t exactly say there are no term limits. However, it appears intended to target voters who support term limits and suggest that a “no” vote is the obvious choice if term limits are a priority. That quick correlation is insufficient information to make an informed vote.

Where did this flyer come from?

Pretty much one dude. His name is Jeffrey Yass.

The flyer states it’s from Commonwealth Partners. When you follow the money, because... duh (always follow the money 💸), the flyer is from essentially just Jeff, the single richest man in Pennsylvania.

The Commonwealth Partners site discloses its two political action committees (PACs): the Commonwealth Leaders Fund and the Commonwealth Children’s Choice Fund. TransparencyUSA.org follows the funding sources behind these efforts.

• Jeffrey Yass gave $34,000,000 to Students First PAC

• Students First PAC gave $31,515,000 to the Commonwealth Children’s Choice Fund

• Commonwealth Children’s Choice Fund gave $26,569,761 to the Commonwealth Leaders Fund

In relation to these contributions, both direct and indirect, from Yass, all other contributions to these organizations are nearly negligible.

So yeah. Jeff put that flyer in your mailbox.

Image via

From TransparencyUSA.org on 9/25/25

From TransparencyUSA.org on 9/25/25

From TransparencyUSA.org as of 9/25/25

Who is Jeff Yass?

Yass made his fortune in investment trading. He is worth nearly $65 billion as of September 2025, according to Forbes. He also received the lowest possible rating for philanthropic efforts from Forbes, so that’s cool.

Yass is an investor in TikTok and (almost) single-handedly got Trump to ignore Congress’s TikTok sale legislation.¹ Yes, he seems to feel entitled to override the will of our representatives on a bipartisan piece of legislation to benefit his personal portfolio. He’s a billionaire in the United States in 2025, so *checks notes* sounds about right. 🙄

During the 2024 election cycle, Yass donated about $100 million to Republican groups and campaigns. Given his intimate ties with the Republican party and their staunch opposition to term limits² (and many other democratic principles lately), I’m inclined to believe the motives behind this little mailer aren’t exactly about “protecting” democracy.

Citizens United + expanding income inequality = ewww

This mailer is the epitome of yucky politics in our country, thanks to a confluence of exponentially expanding income inequality and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (and probably lots of other things). Citizens United was a 2010 Supreme Court case that effectively ruled that corporations and other outside groups (read: super PACs) can spend unlimited amounts of money on elections.

Note sure how super PACs work? Give Stephen Colbert (in his 2011 era) 2 minutes and 46 seconds of your time, and you’ll know enough to want to throw up in your own mouth. Maybe that’s just me?

In effect, the court case and super PACs allow ultra-wealthy individuals like Jeff Yass to spend hundreds of millions of his “pocket change” to exert undue influence on our politics and society, serving their personal agendas. Surely you all remember Elon Musk spending hundreds of millions in our state in 2024, where he can’t even vote. (My eyes are rolling so far back in my head 🙄 they might get stuck.) Thank his super PAC.

Whether you like these individuals or not, more of us should be upset about a small group of people having such an outsized influence on our country. Billionaires ought not decide our fate, especially to serve their selfish agendas, without our informed consent.

How should you vote in November?

That’s up to you. We all have one vote; your vote is yours to use as you see fit. Hopefully, all eligible voters will exercise their civic privilege and cast their votes at the polls or submit their mail-in ballots. Scroll down for details about registration deadlines and polling locations.

In Chadds Ford, we’ll see Kathleen Goodier running unopposed for township supervisor.

Sidenote: Competitive elections yield better candidates and outcomes that better serve the constituency. They shine a light on the performance of our elected officials, hold them accountable to constituents, and help ensure elected officials stand behind an agenda that serves community needs.

That doesn’t mean a good candidate can’t run unopposed, but a competitive election will bring out the best (or maybe the worst) in a candidate and offer more information on which voters can make an informed choice. Want to run for something?

We won’t see an elected auditor position on the ballot because the township delayed accepting Ben Simon’s resignation just long enough to avoid it.

At the state level, we’ll see the option to retain three current Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices (among other things). We will use the democratic process of voting to decide if they should continue serving or not.

Use your vote however you feel compelled, but be informed about the facts. Learn about the justices and the positions they support. Don’t be fooled into thinking that voting “yes” for retention is an abdication of democracy. Your vote decides whether they stay or not; that’s it.

The retention vote is simple:

1. Vote “Yes” if you want the justices to continue serving Pennsylvanians.

2. Vote “No” if you don’t. Then prepare for an ugly, expensive partisan election in 2027, directed and paid for primarily by a handful of billionaires, to potentially replace those justices. I can only imagine the nasty commercials now... 🥴 We got a preview of this bananas nonsense that cost over $100 million in the race for one Wisconsin State Supreme Court Justice seat in April 2025.

You may decide that an expensive and partisan election that will absolutely draw national attention, money, and criticism is worth it.

Vote as you wish, but don’t let convoluted trickery funded by the wealthiest man in Pennsylvania be the arbiter of our elected offices.

Do you have a plan to vote?

Are you registered and ready to vote on November 4, 2025? Find your precinct here (we have two in Chadds Ford) or sign up to receive a mail-in ballot by October 28 to ensure you can execute your civic duty at the next election.

Every good drama needs a cliffhanger so…

Don’t feel left out if you didn’t receive this specific flyer. Commonwealth Partners has more flyers where this “oxygen-breathing-tree-turned-to-ugly-junk-mail” came from. In the spirit of Oprah’s favorite things, “you get a crappy flyer, you get a crappy flyer, and you get a crappy flyer. Everybody gets a crappy flyer!” 🎉

They’ve mined our personal data to send special mailers to different neighbors based on things like how we’re registered, where we live, what websites we visit while doomscrolling, and what sweet nothings we whisper to chatGPT before go to bed at night.³

Let’s come back to this another day. In the meantime, wave to your neighbors and maybe go for a walk or grab lunch with them, even if they get different dirty flyers in their mailbox. 💛

1. Yass and Trump deny that Yass influenced Trump’s position on TikTok, but Trump flipped his long-standing position shortly after meeting with Yass. How gullible do these people think we are?

2. Despite bipartisan support for Supreme Court justice term limits among everyday Americans, the GOP apparatus staunchly opposes term limits for their friends on the Supreme Court bench in Washington. Party mouthpiece Mike Johnson said a bill on justice term limits is “dead on arrival.” Add it to the long list of topics where our Washington “representatives” are wildly out of step with public sentiment. 🫠

3. Not literally, maybe, but you get my gist. It’s not that far off though. 😬