In the past decade, Kent Redfield, a political science professor at the University of Illinois at Springfield, has become widely known because broadcast and print reporters across Illinois, and occasionally the nation, sought out his wisdom as a political pundit — especially when Sen. Barack Obama mounted his presidential bid. 

But long before then, Redfield's studies into how campaign contributions affect public policy in the state made him an invaluable resource to insiders and a voice for reform of the no-holds-barred Illinois system, where anybody can contribute any amount to any candidate. 

Redfield, who will be 60 in July, will retire from the university on August 31 after 29 years, but he still plans to continue his research into campaign finances as director of the Sunshine Project, which focuses on the role of money in politics. 

He grew up in Utah and earned a bachelor's degree in political science at the University of Utah, where he met his wife, Janet. After he obtained his doctorate degree in political science from the University of Washington in Seattle, he worked for a behavioral science research group at the university's medical school. Then a friend who was chief of staff for Illinois House Speaker William Redmond, a Democrat, offered him a job as a committee staffer in Springfield. 

“That was quite an education; it really was,” Redfield says about his 4 and a half years working for the General Assembly. In 1979, when the chance arose to teach and run the legislative intern program at then-Sangamon State University, he left politics for academia, where he has applied his real-world political experience to his research at what is now UIS. He consented to an interview with Illinois Issues executive editor Dana Heupel in mid-April. Here is an edited and excerpted transcript of that conversation. 

Q. How did you initially become interested in politics and political science?

As a freshman, I was a chemistry major, and I really enjoyed going to college the first semester away from home. And frankly, the only class that I really enjoyed or did well in was a political science class. I had a couple of really interesting instructors, and that kind of piqued my interest. … 

I got the bug from some teachers and some classes when I was a freshman and then hooked up with two very different but very influential people in terms of my life as far as within the political science department at the University of Utah. I mean, a guy that was a behavioral scientist who was into sociology and psychology and social psychology in relation to politics, that was really — exciting stuff, and then a legendary guy who was a [constitutional] law person, who I got a couple of A's out of his con law class. The thing I'm most proud of anything I've ever done was to be able to get A's out of this guy. So it was challenging; it was interesting. 

Q. You've made Illinois campaign finance a specialty in your work with the Sunshine Project, the university and other areas. What drew you to delve deeply into how politicians raise and spend money?

Initially, it had to do with the fact that there was data there that no one had looked at. It was on microfiche; it was not readily accessible. So it was in an area [ripe for research] if you're a political scientist and you're interested in elections and state government and those sorts of things, and campaigns are interesting and campaign finance is interesting. 

But in Illinois, there was a challenge — but also obviously a reward — from getting involved with data and information that literally no one had. And so I started working on it and building databases. … But what else makes it interesting in terms of studying campaign finance in Illinois is that it is so wide open. … 

It's interesting in terms of both the role that money plays, but it's also interesting as a political scientist because you know that whatever people are doing, they're doing it because it makes sense to them politically. They're not doing it to get around some kind of contribution limit or some kind of restriction in the law. It's really kind of pure behavior. But it's also fascinating behavior because the campaign finance system both reflects and reinforces Illinois' political culture, which is a very wide-open, power-money, winning-losing, very partisan kind of politics. 

And so it's not surprising that we have the kind of campaign finance system that we have, or that money plays the role that it does. And … eventually, it made it part of … what my interests are in terms of advocating change, in getting involved with advocacy groups, because I really do see the abuses and the excesses from the research that I do. 

Q. After analyzing state campaign finance over all these years, what broad conclusions can you draw?

I think clearly that a pure sunshine system, where all you have is disclosure — reporting and disclosure — is not sufficient. I mean, it's necessary — you have to have that. But I think that if you want to know what the federal system would look like if we just got rid of all the rules and regulations, it would look a lot like Illinois. 

I mean, we've had a 20-year experiment in what role does money play in politics if you have no restrictions, and I don't think that it's positive. And so I think that Illinois is kind of, you know, a prima-facie case that you need to have some kind of regulation and control on the flow of money into politics or you really do distort the pattern, you distort the process. … You're never really going to level the playing field, but Illinois really does allow people with money to maximize the use of that resource. 

Q. Do you think real campaign finance reform is an achievable goal in Illinois?

Oh, sure. I mean, I am always pessimistic short term and optimistic long term. When I started … we were getting microfiche from the State Board of Elections, we're filling out a form that we had to put down our name, occupation, employer, address, the reason you wanted to look at it, a phone number. And then a copy of that went to whoever's report you were looking at. 

So I want to look at [House Speaker] Mike Madigan's campaign finance report, he got a piece of paper saying Kent Redfield came and looked at your report. … 

People could spend anything they want, and so there was no ban on personal use. We have gotten to the point where we've got some modest regulations, we've got really good electronic disclosure, we've got ban of personal use, we're having a discussion about campaign finance reform. 

We may or may not get a pay-to-play bill, a restriction on people with state contracts contributing, but I think over time, when you put it out there and actually get people to engage it, then I think the case is compelling, and it's hard to vote against. It's just always difficult to get it out there so people can vote on it. But the system presents opportunities. 

Whenever there's a huge scandal, that's always an opportunity to go in and try and get some change. … If you can achieve something meaningful, move it a little further down, then that's a good thing. So I think this is doable long term, but I think that you're talking about changing the culture. It's not just changing the law; it's changing the culture. 

Q. The Democrats in the Illinois House and Senate and the governor's office can't agree on an agenda. What do you think they need to do to reach at least a compromise consensus so they can govern effectively?

This is a huge leadership problem and a personality problem that — I mean, this is irreconcilable differences, and unfortunately, there's no way that the Democratic leadership and the governor can file for divorce. And so I think at some point, someone's going to win or someone's going to leave. We're not going to reason together and get a compromise at this point. 

I don't know whether that means [Senate President] Emil Jones abandons the governor, I don't know that means the governor just eventually leaves office under some circumstances. I can't imagine the speaker doing anything different from what he's been doing. I mean we have to have a budget — eventually we'll leverage a budget to get us through this year — but … I'm not looking for a renaissance in terms of these people. 

On the other hand, I don't think that a constitutional convention or recall is going to fix things. I don't think you solve leadership problems with structural changes. … 

You know, a recall is an election — we've not been doing real well with elections as is. Thirty-seven percent of the eligible voters participated in the gubernatorial election. I've said this before, but a lot of people are complaining about an election they apparently skipped, as far as what happened in 2006. …   I'm at a loss, and the people I talk to who have been looking at this as long as I have and have much more of an insider perspective than I do are at a loss as to what's the solution to this. 

Q. You talked about the governor. According to various polls, he's one of the most unpopular governors in state history. Do you think he can win re-election if he wants to, or regain the trust of the citizenry during this term?

I don't see him rising in popularity. The question is, will he, for whatever reason, become basically unelectable, which was what everybody knew by the time you got to the spring of [former Gov.] George Ryan's last [term] — or actually the fall, when he was having to file for primary of his third year — that he was unelectable, that there was no way that he was going to win office again. And so [Gov. Rod Blagojevich], because of corruption or allegations and/or convictions, indictments, or because of just total deterioration of state government, could become unelectable. 

Now, elections are always relational. It's not how good a candidate is Rod Blagojevich, it's how good a candidate is Rod Blagojevich compared to whom he's running against. … I think it's highly unlikely, but I can imagine a scenario where he gets re-elected. 

I think it's going to be more difficult for him to raise money, given the patterns of the last couple of reports, because about 50 cents of every dollar that someone gave him in the last six months — I think it's six months; at least the last report — half of it went to legal fees to Winston & Strawn. 

And that makes it more difficult to raise money if people believe that you're actually paying the legal fees and stuff. But the governor and his team have been the best we have ever seen at using the office of the governor to raise money. But all the money in the world won't help you if you are essentially unelectable. 

Q. Given the federal investigations into his administration, and some of the side investigations that are going on into some of his advisers, do you think Gov. Blagojevich will be indicted?

I think that is clearly the federal prosecutor's intention. … You can look at the pattern of prosecutions, the way they've structured immunity deals and prosecutions. That only makes sense if their target is the governor. Now, it will depend on whether or not the federal prosecutor keeps winning. If Tony Rezko is not convicted, that puts a big hole in that particular avenue. [This interview was conducted — and this edition of Illinois Issues was published — before the Rezko trial concluded.] ... So if I had to just guess, I would say yes … that one of these investigations would lead to his doorstep, that there will be an indictment. … So I would be nervous if I were the governor, given where the prosecutor's heading, but this can fall apart. 

Q. The Republicans in the state can't seem to mount a serious challenge in the legislative or statewide races. Why is that, and what do they need to do to light a fire?

It's a failure of leadership, and it is changing demographics. It is clear that the Republican coalition that had involved moderate to conservative people running for office — [Gov. Jim] Edgar, [Gov. James] Thompson, even [unsuccessful candidate Attorney General] Jim Ryan — has really fallen apart in terms of the fights between the hard-right conservatives and what's been the more moderate, often suburban kind of Republican. … You've seen problems in county organizations and fights over ideology in terms of who's a real Republican and who isn't a real Republican, and you combine that with the demographics, and it's verydifficult for Republicans. … 

Everyone was surprised with the 2000 census for a couple of reasons: One, the city, Chicago, kind of stabilized, and it's even more Democratic than it's ever been. 

The suburbs have become more Democratic as you've got the out-migration in terms of suburban Cook, and then not only have you had out-migration in terms of the collar counties, but this growth in the Hispanic populations in the collar counties has been pretty dramatic. … 

Downstate is becoming more Republican. … The old conservative southern Illinois Democrat is becoming more of a conservative southern Illinois Republican, but their numbers have dropped. … And so I just think the demographics are working against the Republicans. … They have had terrible candidates and a terrible leadership and have had terrible fights. And even if they didn't have any of those things, they would still have problems because of the demographics — both the population demographics and the political demographics. 

Q. How do you see this year's presidential race taking shape?

If I were betting today, I would bet that Barack Obama is going to win the Democratic nomination and that he will get elected president by a very small Electoral College majority and maybe a little safer popular vote. 

I think that his race hurts him more than Hillary Clinton's gender in a general election. And so is he going to lose some parts of the traditional Democratic coalition because of race? That's going to be a huge issue. 

On the other hand, assuming that we have an unpopular war, $4-a-gallon gas and we're going to be in the middle of — pick your quarter — of a moderate recession, then voters [will be] looking for a change. … 

I think it's Obama's characterization that John McCain is running for George Bush's third term. It's always problematic for someone. I mean, it would be worse if McCain were Bush's vice president, but even as just the Republican nominee with an unpopular president, with a bad economy, with an unpopular war, that ought to be a slam dunk for the Democrats. 

Q. Now that you're cutting back your workload at the university, how do you expect to spend your time after August 31?

My grant has been renewed for 2008-2009. I'm going to continue to do campaign finance research. I'm going to work more with the advocacy groups that I work with, both in terms of Illinois and with some initiatives in terms of political reform in the Midwest. I'm going to do more writing, both academic and popular-audience kinds of writing that I just haven't had an opportunity to do, or I haven't taken the opportunity to do. …

And I'm going to play a lot more golf. I kiddingly tell people that my goals are to save the world and break 90, and that I have a better shot at the first goal than the second. But I'm optimistic. … I will teach in the spring, I'll probably teach a class this semester. It's just a different stage of my university career.

Illinois Issues, June 2008