Tag: topic-link-auto

Spotlight PA is an independent, nonpartisan, and nonprofit newsroom producing investigative and public-service journalism that holds power to account and drives positive change in Pennsylvania. Sign up for our free newsletters.

HARRISBURG — Special interests, organizations connected to Pennsylvania’s richest man, and groups with mysterious donors broke spending records to influence the outcome of this year’s critical state Supreme Court elections.

In all, they spent cash and provided other support worth at least $18.7 million, a Spotlight PA review found.

Pennsylvania’s 2025 retention races are likely among the five most expensive elections of their kind in American history, according to Douglas Keith, a deputy director of the New York-based Brennan Center who tracks judicial elections.

“A lot of the changes that we’re seeing around retention elections right now, they reflect a changing understanding of how important these courts are,” Keith told Spotlight PA. “But they also reflect some enormous changes in just how our campaigns operate in this country.”

Almost three-fourths of the spending and support — more than $13 million — favored retention for three justices elected as Democrats: Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty, and David Wecht. It came from the candidates’ campaigns as well as a plethora of Democratic-aligned interest groups funded by plaintiffs’ lawyers who argue for big money verdicts, organized labor, and liberal-leaning mega donors from across the country.

The spending opposing retention came predominantly from nonprofits tied to a network of political groups historically funded by billionaire Jeff Yass. This type of spending is often known as “dark money” because of the difficulty of tracing the money’s origins, and was enabled by the federal Citizens United ruling in 2010.

In total, spending on these races was much higher than in 2005, the last time this kind of election was seriously contested. The two candidates reported spending under $1 million combined that year.

Despite a determined effort to oust them through a campaign of, at times, misleading ads, all three justices were comfortably retained. In each race, roughly 800,000 more voters supported keeping them on the bench rather than kicking them off. Turnout was high for an off-year election, particularly in Philadelphia and its suburbs — areas favorable to Democrats.

Historically, the goal and intention of the retention elections are for voters to base their decision on a judge’s performance, Deborah Gross, chief executive of advocacy group Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, told Spotlight PA. But looking at 2025, “money has now reared its ugly head.”

Judges, she added, are “not accountable to the public. They’re accountable to the Constitution and the rule of law, and the public shouldn’t really be influencing that. They really need to be independent.” This level of spending — and fundraising it entails — could threaten that independence, she argued.

Added Jim McErlane, a lawyer and 2016 Republican National Convention delegate, to Spotlight PA: “Judges should not have to worry about their popularity with anybody.”

It’s still unknown if 2025 was an aberration or a sign of things to come.

McErlane thought it was a one-off driven by a unique opportunity for Republicans to open a path to flip the court from a majority of justices elected as Democrats. Had voters rejected any of the candidates, that seat would have been vacated and up for grabs in the next odd-year election (Donohue’s seat will be on the 2027 ballot because she is approaching the mandatory retirement age).

While the court had delivered rulings on issues like gerrymandering and voting by mail that aligned with Democrats’ positions, that didn’t mean the justices deserved to be kicked off the bench, McErlane argued.

“Sometimes your side’s going to win, sometimes your side’s going to lose,” he said. “I think you sort of roll with it.”

But writing in a November op-ed, Matt Brouillette, who leads the network of Yass-funded groups, struck a defiant note, calling for GOP-aligned investment to match Democrats’ spending.

“It’s time for the Right to recognize what’s at stake — and send in its own cavalry to win Pennsylvania,” he wrote.

A likely incomplete total

As money flooded into this year’s judicial races, many of the spending details weren’t clear to voters ahead of Election Day.

Spotlight PA reported in October that the state’s process for political groups to report independent spending is full of loopholes, has minimal penalties, and is mostly self-enforced.

To gain a better understanding of the donors and power players who shaped this year’s retention elections, Spotlight PA in mid-December analyzed three big buckets of spending. The news organization examined spending as reported by the candidates’ own committees, independent expenditures reported by outside groups, and “in-kind” contributions accepted by the candidates. Those in-kind contributions can be anything of value under state law, but typically include TV ads, mailers, and fundraiser expenses like food and drink.

Since money sometimes moves between different groups, Spotlight PA took steps to avoid double-counting dollars. The analysis also included totals for some disclosures that appeared to lump spending on the state Supreme Court retention election with other races.

The total could still rise. A spokesperson for the Pennsylvania Department of State told Spotlight PA in mid-December that agency officials were “still receiving some Independent Expenditure reports and are working to enter them,” with new entries entered by hand in real time.

Brouillette’s groups, the established Commonwealth Partners and the brand new Citizens for Term Limits, paid for nearly all of the advertising opposing retention, totaling about $4.8 million, Spotlight PA’s analysis found. As both groups are nonprofits, the source of these dollars is unknown. However, Brouillette’s groups have historically been funded by Yass.

A spokesperson for Commonwealth Partners did not respond to requests for comment.

On the pro-retention side, Donohue, Dougherty, and Wecht — plus groups coordinating with them — spent or made “in-kind” contributions of more than $9 million.

All three candidates also contributed to a political action committee called Vote Yes for Fair and Independent Courts, which paid for the production and placement of TV ads. Vote Yes received the majority of its funding from trial lawyers, who often argue big money personal injury, medical malpractice, and other civil suits before judges.

At least $4 million in pro-retention spending was done independently by groups that did not coordinate with the candidates, including Planned Parenthood’s advocacy arm. A wide range of other organizations also paid for student engagement, fliers, text messages, canvassing, and other support.

The ACLU reported spending about $914,000 to the Department of State, and online records describe the expenditures as supporting the candidates. The state and national chapters described the campaign as educational in public statements, while a spokesperson told Spotlight PA its independent expenditure report included the disclaimer that the organization “does not endorse or oppose candidates.”

“The expenditures being reported in this filing were in support of one or more of the positions of the candidates identified on critical civil liberties issues,” the spokesperson continued.

Other pro-retention spending was done by Pennsylvanians for Judicial Fairness, a state-level super PAC. It has poured money from unions, trial lawyers, billionaires, national super PACs, and dark money nonprofits into the commonwealth’s statewide judicial races since 2023.

This year, more than a third of its funding came from nonprofits such as PA Alliance Action, a state-level dark money group, according to Spotlight PA’s analysis of PJF’s fundraising. Such organizations’ funding is harder to trace than that of a typical PAC, as they do not have to disclose their donors.

PJF’s spending also shows some of the limits in how the commonwealth tracks political spending, particularly in the age of dark money.

As of Dec. 22, it reported spending more than $780,000 on digital ads, mail, “production,” and a phone program to the Department of State as independent expenditures.

However, the super PAC also funded at least one pro-retention TV ad, Spotlight PA previously found. The group had not reported that spending as an independent expenditure as of mid-December, though it did disclose spending about $3 million on TV buys through separate reports — campaign finance filings to the state.

PJF did not respond to a request for comment to explain what the about $3 million was spent on — the reports describe the expenditures as TV buys and TV ad buys — and why it wasn’t reported as an independent expenditure.

These discrepancies are “another indication of maybe some gaps in Pennsylvania’s reporting system, or at very least the way it’s presenting the data,” said Keith, of the Brennan Center.

Whether the tsunami of money actually changed voters’ minds is hard to say.

Sue Grice, a 41-year-old mother of four and registered independent from Montgomery County, told Spotlight PA on Election Day that she supports abortion access, but was also still frustrated by the closure of schools and churches during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Weighing the two stances, she decided the latter was her priority and voted against retaining all three justices.

Finding trusted, nonpartisan information on the races was a frustrating endeavor, she said, compared to the barrage of advertising.

“I got a stupid amount of text messages,” she said, “and sent them all to spam.”

BEFORE YOU GO … If you learned something from this article, pay it forward and contribute to Spotlight PA at spotlightpa.org/donate. Spotlight PA is funded by foundations and readers like you who are committed to accountability journalism that gets results.

Spotlight PA is an independent, nonpartisan, and nonprofit newsroom producing investigative and public-service journalism that holds power to account and drives positive change in Pennsylvania. Sign up for our free newsletters.

HARRISBURG — In November, Pennsylvania Department of Aging Secretary Jason Kavulich found himself in the hot seat.

He was testifying before a legislative committee on his department’s oversight of 52 county-based Area Agencies on Aging that protect vulnerable older adults from abuse or neglect.

Reading from prepared remarks, Kavulich asserted that under his watch, the department has ushered in an era of modernization and change.

He said the system his agency now uses to determine the quality of protective services is more accountable and gives real-time feedback so any problems can be speedily fixed. He also testified that the department is the most transparent it has ever been, saying that it places an unprecedented amount of data on its website about whether counties are following state requirements for quickly and efficiently investigating abuse and neglect allegations — and keeping older adults safe.

The reality is far more nuanced.

Over the last 18 months, a Spotlight PA investigation has revealed persistent flaws within Pennsylvania’s safety net for older adults. The reporting highlighted how delays, secrecy, and government inaction have left older Pennsylvanians vulnerable to abuse, neglect, and even death.

Many of those older adults lack financial resources for alternative care or a network of family and friends to watch out for them — they rely on the system to remain safe.

Protective services work is emotionally and physically taxing. Many caseworkers juggle high workloads, often for little money. Turnover is high, making it difficult to retain qualified, experienced people. Even the most hardened critics of the state’s protective services system acknowledge the difficulty of the work.

Still, new data show that many counties continue to fail in some of the most important areas of older adult protective services.

Critics of Kavulich’s administration, including former protective or aging services staffers at the department, believe many of his changes have relaxed oversight of the county agencies and weakened efforts to ensure they follow rules and keep older adults safe.

These critics note that Kavulich once helmed a county aging agency and later presided over the association that represents their interests. That background, they believe, makes him sympathetic to the very agencies his department is supposed to oversee.

At least one employee is suing him and the department, alleging retaliation for raising alarms about transparency problems and elder abuse system failures.

Most alarmingly, hundreds of older adults continue to die while their abuse and neglect cases are actively being investigated by their local aging agency, according to data provided to Spotlight PA by state aging officials.

“Has he made changes? Yes,” said Sheri McQuown, a former Department of Aging specialist who monitored the quality of protective services by counties, including the one Kavulich once led. “Do those changes benefit older adults? No. They benefit the [counties].”

A new monitoring system

Appointed by Gov. Josh Shapiro in 2023, Kavulich has repeatedly asserted that he inherited a deeply flawed system for assessing how well counties investigate abuse and neglect allegations and provide services to keep older adults safe.

He called the system subjective, said it was riddled with inconsistencies, and claimed that it did little to help counties correct problems or improve their performance.

This year, he replaced it with a new monitoring system, called the Comprehensive Agency Performance Evaluation, or CAPE.

Under CAPE, counties are assessed and scored in five main categories, and those results are published online — the first time the department has made that information easily accessible.

CAPE, Kavulich has said, allows the department to drill down on specific problems and help counties in the areas where they are struggling the most, including through training opportunities.

“Accountability is about improvement, not punishment,” Kavulich said at a state Senate hearing in November.

Earlier this year, Spotlight PA obtained copies of the forms and scoresheets the department used to monitor counties both before CAPE and after. Those records show the prior monitoring system assessed counties using a wide range of measures drawn from state regulations.

For instance, it assessed counties on how quickly they met in person with an older adult suspected of being in danger of abuse or neglect. It also monitored them on how quickly the investigation was completed.

Denise Getgen, the department’s former director of protective services, oversaw the agency’s previous monitoring system until her tenure ended in 2023 and rejected Kavulich’s assertion that it was flawed. It was “absolutely based on the law and regulations and our policy documents at the time,” she said.

In fact, Getgen said, the department provided the county aging agencies with paperwork that cited the specific regulation, policy, or law for every point on which they were being monitored.

Kevin Longenecker, who headed the department’s division of housing and aging services before he retired in 2021, echoed Getgen’s assessment of the legacy system. He said the assertion that it was haphazard and subjective “couldn’t be further from the truth.”

“It was the most consistent monitoring we had,” he said.

Former department employees interviewed by Spotlight PA assert that CAPE makes it easier for counties to receive passing grades.

That is because in implementing CAPE, the department did away with the previous weighted scores, meaning local aging agencies are no longer graded more harshly for serious investigative failures. Under CAPE, the department equally scores relatively minor problems — such as poorly kept paperwork — and more serious deficiencies, such as failing to swiftly complete abuse and neglect investigations.

Unlike the previous monitoring system, CAPE does not designate counties as compliant or noncompliant with state regulations. Nor does it assign them an overall score. Instead, it uses a percentage system to score the counties in each of the five main categories — they must score at least a 75% to avoid additional scrutiny from the department.

Since CAPE went into effect earlier this year, 16 county aging agencies have been monitored. Of those, 12 received less than 75% in the “risk mitigation and safety” category, according to department data.

It is one of the most important categories — and one that used to be weighted more heavily.

State aging officials describe it this way on the department’s website: “Risk mitigation for the older adult involves assessing their individual needs, coordinating support services, and implementing protective actions to ensure safety. The goal of risk mitigation and safety is to enhance the older adult’s well-being and protect them from further harm.”

In an email, department spokesperson Karen Gray said criticism that CAPE is more lenient on the counties has “no basis in fact.”

“In fact, some AAAs have not met the department’s minimum compliance threshold of 75% in certain categories, clearly showing the new system is working and readily identifying issues — not masking them within an overall score like the previous system allowed,” she said.

When asked whether the department was concerned that the majority of counties monitored so far were falling short in the risk mitigation category, Gray did not respond.

More public data

The department has made good on Kavulich’s promise to make more data about his agency’s work — as well as the work of the county aging agencies — available to the public.

The department now publishes data on its website on how well counties are complying with state rules that mandate caseworkers make “every attempt” to meet face-to-face with an older adult within 24 hours of receiving an emergency or priority report of suspected abuse or neglect.

That is a metric that the majority of counties have, at least since 2017, met with success.

The agency also began posting data about whether counties complete abuse and neglect investigations — and provide services to help an at-risk older adult, if an allegation is substantiated — within 20 days of receiving a report. (Kavulich, as well as representatives of the county’s aging agencies, have asserted that the 20-day deadline is a goal. State regulations say counties “shall make all reasonable efforts” to complete investigations of reports of need in that time frame, “and, in cases of abuse and neglect, at least within 20 days of the receipt of the report.” The Office of State Inspector General has described it as a legal requirement.)

Still, the 20-day compliance data on the department’s website exclude instances where caseworkers were unable to locate an older adult — a change from past practice, when those cases were included. That makes it difficult to determine whether counties have, as the department has asserted, made improvements. It also makes it impossible to compare their performance with past years.

Asked about the change, Gray said the department isn’t excluding those data — instead, it is “no longer including” them in its calculations.

But, she said, the information is still tracked. And the department has a directive that spells out multiple steps counties must take before determining someone can’t be located, including contacting the person’s family and friends and monitoring their residence and frequented locations.

The 20-day deadline is an area in which many counties have historically fared poorly.

A Spotlight PA analysis of compliance data between 2017 and 2024 found that, in the best year, nearly a third of total cases investigated annually by the 52 county agencies either missed the 20-day deadline or contained faulty paperwork that made it impossible to determine how they performed. Some years were far worse — nearly half didn’t meet the requirement.

The 20-day compliance data posted on the department’s website does not permit the public to calculate the percentage of overall cases in which the deadline was missed, although it does provide overall monthly scores for each of the 52 agencies. It also doesn’t break down how many days past the deadline an investigation dragged on. Spotlight PA’s analysis found that investigations at times blew the deadline by months or even more than a year.

The data also do not include the number of older adults who died while their abuse and neglect cases were actively being investigated. In 2018, 888 people died while counties looked into allegations they were being abused or neglected. In 2023 — the last year of complete data — that number was 1,511, a 70% increase over just five years.

The association that represents county aging agencies has argued that those numbers don’t tell the whole story, and that the data are skewed in part by the dramatic impact of the pandemic on the well-being of older adults.

Yet the number of deaths hasn’t dropped dramatically in the years since. Preliminary data show that 1,364 older adults died while under the care of the system in 2024.

A whistleblower suit

Just before Thanksgiving, a longtime employee of the state Department of Aging sued the agency and Shapiro in federal court, alleging retaliation and harassment for sounding the alarm about the state’s failures in protecting older adults from abuse and neglect.

Aging Services Supervisor Richard Llewellyn alleges department brass thwarted his efforts to assist investigations by outside agencies, including the Office of State Inspector General, into the quality of older adult protective services around Pennsylvania.

Llewellyn also alleges that top department officials purposely suppressed or manipulated data to shield problems when responding to public records requests, including in response to one by Spotlight PA. Llewellyn alleges that Deputy Aging Secretary Jonathan Bowman even bragged about his ability to exploit loopholes to dodge having to turn over complete and accurate data.

Llewellyn alleges that when he objected to and later reported the alleged wrongdoing to other state officials, he was subjected to a campaign of retaliation, including targeted administrative complaints and investigations.

He was also stripped of work duties — notably, gathering accurate information in response to Right-to-Know requests.

In his lawsuit, Llewellyn describes a culture of intimidation and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment as well as the state’s Whistleblower Law.

Gray said the department cannot comment on personnel matters or pending litigation.

Llewellyn has been suspended from his position since July, the result of a human resources complaint being filed against him. In all, Llewellyn has been subjected to five complaints in the space of 13 months, and so far has been cleared of wrongdoing in two.

In an interview, Llewellyn said he was never told who filed the complaints, but believes they are part of a concerted effort to intimidate him, hamper criticism, and prevent the system’s problems from being aired publicly.

Llewellyn said he hopes that, as a result of his litigation, the retaliation that has upended his professional life comes to an end.

He also said he hopes it sheds light on what he believes is “outright fraud” by department executives.

“And I hope it helps shed light on the fact that the changes made by Secretary Kavulich benefit the [county aging agencies] and not older adults,” he said. “Because that is what is happening.”

BEFORE YOU GO … If you learned something from this article, pay it forward and contribute to Spotlight PA at spotlightpa.org/donate. Spotlight PA is funded by foundations and readers like you who are committed to accountability journalism that gets results.