Monday, July 30, 2012

A First Look at Sen. McCain's New Think Tank

Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) think tank, which Think Tank Watch previously wrote about, has just launched its new website. Above is a video about the think tank.

Condi in Think Tank Land

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a rumored Romney vice presidential pick, is having quite a post-Bush Administration think tank career.  Here are some examples:
  • Rice is chair of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Independent Task Force on US Education Reform and National Security.  [She is a current member of CFR based on the 2011 membership list.]
  • She spoke before the Heritage Foundation in April 2012 about American exceptionalism.
Rice is no stranger to think tanks.  She was previously an intern and later on the board of trustees of the Rand Corporation, and she served as an international affairs fellow at CFR.

How is the Wilson Center Funded?

The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (Wilson Center), is a US presidential memorial (and think tank) that was established as part of the Smithsonian Institution by an act of Congress in 1968 (PL 90-637).  Although it was initially established within the Smithsonian Institution family, it operates as a separate entity.  It is considered a non-partisan public-private institution.

Here is how Wikipedia describes its funding:
The Center is a public-private partnership. Approximately one third of the Center's operating funds come annually from an appropriation from the U.S. government, and the Center's building, a wing of the Ronald Reagan Building, was provided by the U.S. government. The remainder of the Center's funding comes from foundations, grants and contracts, corporations, individuals, endowment income, and subscriptions.
The Board of Trustees are appointed to six-year terms by the US President.  The Board is made up of private citizens (businessmen, lawyers, professors, etc...) and public members, who currently include Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, among others.

Based on the latest publicly available records, the Wilson Center has assets of around $106 million.

Click here to see the Wilson Center's budget justifications for fiscal year 2013 that is presented to the US Congress, in which it asked for $10.492 million.

The document notes that funding support has come from, among others, both large and small foundations such as the Carnegie Corporation, MacArthur Foundation, Connect US Fund, and Leon Levy Foundation.  It notes that because of "challenging economic conditions," foundation endowments to the Center have declined.

It was announced in February 2011 that [former] Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) was appointed to be the Wilson Center's new head.  She resigned from Congress on February 28, 2011 to join the Center as its first female Director, President, and CEO.

Harman is also on the Board of Trustees of the Aspen Institute.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

CSIS Releases Classified DoD Study

Several months ago, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) was asked by the Department of Defense to do an independent assessment of the US defense posture in the Pacific Command area.

The CSIS study was under the joint direction of David Berteau, Senior Vice President and Director of the International Security Program at CSIS, and Michael Green, Senior Advisor and Japan Chair at CSIS.

Here is what the DoD said on July 24, 2012 about the CSIS report:

Today the Department of Defense transmitted to Congress the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) independent assessment of the United States defense posture in the U.S. Pacific Command area of responsibility. This report was commissioned as a requirement of section 346 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2012 (P.L. 112-81). The department also transmitted to Congress Secretary Panetta’s comments on the report.
The secretary appreciates the hard work of the CSIS team and the extensive analysis they have undertaken, and he values their insights.
U.S. policy calls for rebalancing defense, diplomatic, and economic resources toward the Asia-Pacific region. Essential to this strategy is the effort to strengthen alliances and partnerships in the region and to advance a common security vision through those relationships.
The CSIS assessment is consistent with the major elements of the department’s defense strategy. The report supports the department’s approach to enhancing the U.S. defense posture in the Asia-Pacific and highlights some of key steps that will need to be taken in the future to achieve that goal.
In the coming days, department leaders will meet with members of Congress to discuss the report’s findings. We look forward to consulting with the Congress, whose support is essential to ensuring that we can fulfill our nation’s defense needs in the Asia-Pacific region.
Parts of the study reportedly are classified, and a CSIS spokesman has said that it is up to the Pentagon to decide what can be made public.

The House Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee on Readiness will hold a hearing on the findings on August 1, 2012.  Testifying will be David Bereau and Michael Green, along with Robert Scher, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Plans, and David Helvey, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for East Asia.

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) is the Chairman of that Subcommittee, and Rep. Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam) is the Ranking Democrat on that Subcommittee.  Here is Rep. Bordallo's statement on the CSIS release.

Here is a statement by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), John McCain (D-AZ), and Jim Webb (D-VA).

Unclassified portions of the 100+ page report can be read here.

Think Tank Fact of the Week: Playboy & CAP

Christie Hefner, Chairman and CEO of Playboy Enterprises, Inc. from 1998 to 2008, and daughter of Playboy founder Hugh Hefner, works at the liberal Center for American Progress (CAP).

This transcript from October 19, 2009 lists Hefner as Director of the Board of Directors of the Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAPAF). CAP's annual report from 2010 lists her as a member of the Board of Directors.

CAPAF is the lobbying arm of CAP, and was formerly known as the American Progress Action Fund.  It is also described as CAP's "sister advocacy organization."  It is organizationally and financially separate from CAP, although they share many staff and a physical address.  CAP is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, whereas CAPAF is a 501(c)(4).

As you can see here, Christie Hefner has been a prolific donor to Democrats.  Her father Hugh Hefner has also been a long-time donor to Democrats.

Hustler founder Larry Flynt is also a long-time donor to Democrats.

This article says that the porn industry is a small but important source of campaign cash for Democrats.  That said, porn star Jenna Jameson has come out in support or Mitt Romney.

Is CAP the porn industry's favorite Washington think tank?

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

CEI Attacks Penn State Climate Scientist

Here is what Politico reports:
Penn State University global warming researcher Michael Mann is lawyering up to counter attacks by conservatives who have referred to him as the “Jerry Sandusky of climate science.”
Mann’s lawyer wrote Friday to National Review Executive Publisher Scott Budd demanding a retraction and apology for a July 15 blog post that compares Penn State’s mishandling of years of child sexual abuse to the university’s investigation of “Climategate.”
The charged reference to Sandusky, the convicted child molester and former assistant coach, originated with a July 13 post on the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s blog, The National Review Online post quoted from a now-deleted line by CEI’s Rand Simberg, who wrote: “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”
CEI later removed the line and added an editor’s note that said, “Two inappropriate sentences that originally appeared in this post have been removed by the editor.”
Earlier this month, Myron Ebell of CEI leaked a document about a "secret" carbon tax meeting that the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) held.

Based on the latest publicly available documents, CEI had around $4.2 million in total net revenue and total assets of around $2 million.  CEI President Fred Smith received a salary of $210,222.

Monday, July 23, 2012

Former Rep. Jim Marshall (D-GA) to Head USIP

Former Rep. Jim Marshall (D-GA) will head the US Institute of Peace (USIP).  Marshall's 3-year renewable term role begins September 14, 2012.  He will take over as head from Jim Solomon, who was USIP's president for 19 years.

During his House tenture, Marshall was a member of the so-called Blue Dog Coalition, a group of conservative Congressional Democrats.  He served on the Agriculture Committee, Armed Services Committee, and Financial Services Committee.

Here is USIP's official press release.  Here is Marshall full biography.  Here is a statement from Jim Solomon on the appointment.

USIP was created by Congress in 1984 as a non-partisan, federal institution that works to prevent or end violent conflict around the world.

The choice of Marshall may be a smart move by the Board of Directors which was probably thinking that it would be good to have a moderate former Member of Congress to defend its budget.

On February 17, 2011 the House accepted an amendment to a funding bill to eliminate all funding for the USIP as part of a broader effort to cut federal spending.  The vote was 268-163.  At that time, Rep. Chip Cravaack (D-MN), one of the co-sponsors of the amendment, said that if signed into law, the amendment would save taxpayers $42 million in 2011.

Here is how Al Kamen of the Washington Post described USIP's new office building in 2011:
Perhaps if its 325 staff members all toiled overseas or hunkered down in some creaky offices downtown, it wouldn't have become so exposed. But, as the two lawmakers noted, there's that curiously shaped 150,000-square-foot, $183 million new office building in a prime location near the Lincoln Memorial that it is soon moving into.
Here is how Wikipedia describes USIP's budget/funding:
USIP’s annual operating budget for fiscal 2011 is about $39.5 million. The Institute's request for 2012 is $42 million. USIP is not allowed to receive private funding for its operations. However, about $88 million was raised in private funds for the construction of its new headquarters building on the National Mall. 
As Think Tank Watch noted in a previous post (and as The Cable has mentioned), USIP is quietly working on a a transition plan for Syria.

You can view this document to learn about how salaries are paid at USIP.

Update: Former USIP Presidnet Jim Solomon has joined the RAND Corporation as a Senior Fellow.

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Think Tank Quickies #10

  • Getting research into policy: The role of think tanks and other mediators.
  • On corruption at think tanks in India.
  • Google Ideas, CFR, and others working together to find ways to disrupt international crime. 
  • George W. Bush's unveils his think tank's first book.  More on the George W. Bush Institute.
  • Aung San Suu Kyi will travel to the US Sept. 21 to accept the Atlantic Council's 2012 Global Citizen Award.  ACUS will also honor Henry Kissinger, Sadako Ogata, and Quincy Jones.
  • DARPA, DoD's think tank, is looking to crowdsource heavy weapons development/manufacturing.
  • On the media's "go-to" but controversial source for kill figures: New America Foundation. 
  • USIP secretly drawing up transition for Syria. 
  • Center for Security Policy (CSP) accuses Hillary Clinton sidekick Huma Abedin of being linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.
  • Do universities have a distinct advantage over think tanks when it comes to research?
  • Washington Diplomat article on the Wilson Center's Jane Harman.

Monday, July 16, 2012

So You Want To Work At a Think Tank?

McGill University in Canada recently had an event for graduate career month on working at think tanks.  Here is the video of the presenters:
  • Siomonn Pulla, senior research associate, Centre for the North - Conference Board of Canada
  • Laura Hernandez, research associate, Public History Inc.
  • Sébastien A. Côté, associate director, Quebec and Francophonie at the Fraser Institute
  • Jeremy Leonard, research director, Institute for Research on Public Policy

Friday, July 13, 2012

AEI's "Secret" Carbon Tax Meeting With Liberals

The conservative Washington Examiner reported that on Wednesday (July 11) the conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI) hosted a "secret meeting" with other Washington, DC think tank officials, including members from several prominent liberal think tanks, to discuss how to build support for a carbon pollution tax.

Here is how the Examiner described the meeting:

Representatives from such liberal groups as Union of Concerned Scientists, Public Citizen,  the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and the Brookings Institute, the Climate Action Network and Clean, Air-Cool Planet joined centrist groups such as the Concord Coalition, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies and conservatives scholars from AEI and R Street, a group that broke away from the Heartland Institute.
The 5-hour meeting was titled “Price Carbon Campaign/ Lame Duck Initiative.” The first session on the agenda was titled “Congressional Republicans, Romney and Business Leaders: Detoxifying climate policy for conservatives.” This was followed by discussions titled “Progressive/Social Justice Groups,” and “Economists and deficit hawks.”
The second session was titled “Framing and selling a carbon pollution tax.” It included discussions “Building bipartisan support and navigating Ways & Means” and “Honing the case for a carbon pollution tax.”
The event was not publicly announced, and all participants reached by the Washington Examiner declined to discuss it on the record in any detail, saying it was a private event.
Kevin Hassett, AEI’s director of economic policy studies and Tom Stokes, head of the Climate Crisis Coalition, were the reported organizers of the event.
The article notes that a copy of the agenda was obtained by Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and a staunch critic of carbon taxes.  He apparently passed on the news about the meeting and the agenda to friends and colleagues.  That is apparently how some in the media heard about the meeting.

It has been said that Mr. Ebell's main job is to provide material to the media in the form of quotes to newspaper reporters and participation in live interviews on the subject of climate change.  He also serves as director of Freedom Action, a web-based grassroots activist organization loosely affiliated with CEI, and chairs the Cooler Heads Coalition with "questions global warming alarmism and opposes energy rationing policies."

It was reported in 2009 that CEI had a deficit of about $450,000.  It also lost its Center for Risk, Regulation and Markets (and its $500,000 budget) to the Heartland Institute.  This seemingly old document shows CEI's funders over $10,000.  The most recently available Form 990 shows CEI with about $2 million in net assets and $4.2 million in total  annual revenues.

The most recently available Form 990 shows AEI with roughly $34 million in total revenue and net assets of roughly $150 million (that is not a typo).

Here is what Right Side News had to say about the secret meeting.

Here is what Reason Magazine had to say about the meeting.

Here is what National Review had to say about the meeting.

Here is what Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast had to say about the meeting.

Update: The July 16, 2012 CQToday describes the AEI meeting like this:
The surprise push by liberal and conservative interests to build support for a carbon tax has provided an unlikely opening for renewed debate on a subject that has almost fallen completely off the map in the current Congress - climate change.
 Advocates for tackling climate change were heartened by news of a July 11 meeting at the conservative American Enterprise Institute focuses on enacting a carbon tax.  The huddle - which according to a leaked agenda posted online included environmentalists, conservative economists and deficit hawks - was part of a quiet campaign to build support for a tax on greenhouse gas emissions.
A liberal participant at the AEI meeting said the effort is in its early stages.  "It still has a long way to go before it becomes a part of the solution," said Daniel J. Weiss, director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress (CAP).
 Here is how Politico described the meeting:
Nobody expects the idea to be enacted anytime soon, but some liberal and conservative thinkers are having a quiet, informal dialogue about imposing a tax on industrial carbon emissions.  The result: a burst of loud criticism from the right.
Last week's hubbub arose from a private gathering Wednesday hosted by the American Enterprise Institute.  The agenda lists officials representing organizations including Public Citizen, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Brookings Institution, and Resources for the Future (RFF).

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Dining At The World's Top Think Tank

In between 100 degree days in Washington, DC, I decided to explore the little-known cafeteria within the Brookings Institution.  After all my years wandering in and out of think tanks, including Brookings, the cafeteria never appeared on my radar-screen.  Usually, I go to an event at Brookings that serves breakfast (bagels and assorted croissants) or lunch (tuna/ham/roast beef sandwiches), but this was my first adventure at the cafeteria of the most famous think tank in the world.

Well, there is nothing to get too excited about.  I'm sure it is a great thing to have if you work at Brookings or nearbye think tanks such as the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) or the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE), but don't come expecting to be wowed.  In fact, the cafeteria, on the first floor of Brookings and open to the public, reminded me of my middle school cafeteria: dark, dingy, cheerless, and uneventful.  In other words, it is almost like any other cafeteria around the world.

There is only a narrow space to stand in line to get food, leaving one feeling a bit claustrophobic.  The pizza and lunch meat sat there looking dry and sad.  The salad bar looked uninspiring.  I opted for the Chinese food, generally a safe (albeit standard) bet at most cafeterias.  I got white rice and fried rice along with an assortment of Kung Pao chicken and some stir fry vegetables.  After paying for the meal (priced by weight; credit cards accepted), I grabbed a seat with a colleague in the back.

There is not much to say about standard cafeteria fare, except for the fact that it wasn't too bad (or too good).  The thing that separates the Brookings cafeteria from most other cafeterias is the foreign policy and political chatter being batted around, including by the flood of interns who flock to DC think tanks in the summer.  Besides that, I have nothing good or bad to report.  I am indifferent.  If you need to grab some food nearbye, Brookings is not bad, but I certainly wouldn't rush out of my way to eat there.

You can read the Think Tank Watch post on best food experience at a think tank here.

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Average DC Think Tank Event = Five Guys in Suits?

Anne Kim, Progressive Policy Institute's (PPI) Managing Director for Policy and Strategy, wrote a piece for the July/August 2012 edition of the left-of-center Washington Monthly titled "Where Are The Woman Wonks?  Why the average D.C. think tank event features five guys in suits."

Here are some excerpts/highlights:
Every day in Washington, D.C., brings numerous announcements about the various policy events, forums, and conferences around town that serve as meet-and-greets for the city’s thinking elite. In addition to a prepackaged muffin or a stale sandwich and some badly brewed coffee, these events typically feature a slate of experts on whatever topic is the focus. Also typically, most of these experts are men.
Certainly, some of the most powerful people in policy today are women, such as the Center for American Progress’s president, Neera Tanden, and Sarah Rosen Wartell, president of the Urban Institute. But male “brand-name” policy experts far outnumber the women. Men—white men—dominate the senior management at many of the most influential D.C. think tanks. And men—white men—dominate the ranks of “scholars” in many institutions.
Even at such venerable tanks as the Brookings Institution, male scholars heavily outnumber women. The worst offenders, not surprisingly, are the right-wing think tanks, many of whose staff rosters look like the membership of Augusta National. The Heritage Foundation, for example, has fifteen (almost identical) white men on their “senior management” page and only two women, neither of whom hold policy positions. At the American Enterprise Institute, just eight of the sixty resident scholars are women, as is only one of the institution’s top five officials.
There are a number of possible explanations for the dearth of women in wonkery. The first is generational— people at think tanks are old. It’s no coincidence that almost everyone who works in think tanks is a “senior fellow.” Often, think tank fellows are senior in all meanings of the word. Washington has always revered two types of talent: the fresh and brilliant wunderkind, and the been-there and done-it-all sage. Think tanks especially revere the Yoda types—and women Yodas are few and far between.
A second possible explanation for the shortage of women wonks is that the situation is symptomatic of the larger shortage of women in politics. A common path to a think tank is to hold elected office or to work in a senior position on the Hill or in the White House. But according to the Center for American Women and Politics, women currently hold just 16.8 percent of the seats in Congress—seventy-three in the House, and seventeen in the Senate. And in the course of our nation’s history, women have held only forty-five Cabinet or Cabinet- level posts. According to a review of compensation studies by Politico, 41 percent of House chiefs of staff and 37 percent of House legislative directors in 2010 were women, compared to 84 percent of executive assistants and 82 percent of schedulers.
A third possible explanation for the small number of women wonks is that women “self-select” into certain policy areas. And, indeed, there are some arenas in which women dominate—such as social policy, education, and, of course, abortion rights. In fact, you’d be hard pressed to find many prominent male experts in these areas. But do women truly self-select into these policy areas, or is there an implicit glass ceiling that makes it tougher for women to achieve prominence in other fields? Many of the biggest and “sexiest” macroeconomic policy areas that drive the most attention—think tax, budget, and finance—are largely the province of men. An unfortunate implication of this gender split is that there are “Daddy” issues and “Mommy” ones— i.e., testosterone-charged issues involving trucks, money, and bombs, and “softer” issues like welfare and poverty.
Which leads to a final possible reason for the scarcity of women in policy: chauvinism. But, hey, it’s 2012, right? Unfortunately, the holy grail for many think tankers is to be a cable TV regular. And for this, women clearly face a higher bar—not only must they be policy experts, they must be policy babes. (Men, on the other hand, feel no pressure to be policy hunks. Just ask Bill O’Reilly.)
Also, check out the comments section from the article; many people are complaining about the photo used (which you can find above).

So, does a women need to be a "policy babe" to succeed at a think tank?  Does the think tank world have a go-to policy babe?  Should someone be putting together a list of the most beautiful people in think tank land, an exercise that The Hill newspaper does with Congressional staffers in its 50 Most Beautiful People on Capitol Hill?

Perhaps Think Tank Watch can put together the first-ever 50 Most Beautiful People of Think Tank Land...

CEIP Named North American Think Tank of the Year

The Prospect magazine's annual think tank awards results are in.  Here are some highlights:

Top three North American think tanks of the year (2012):
  1. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP)
  2. Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment (CSBA)
  3. Brookings Institution
Top three European think tanks of the year, excluding UK (2012):
  1. Bruegel
  2. Institute of Modern Politics
  3. The Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey (TEPAV) 
  • UK think tank of the year: Social Market Foundation
  • Global think tank of the year: Bruegel
Here is Think Tank Watch's previous post on the Prospect magazine think tank awards.

Friday, July 6, 2012

New Book: The Anti-Think Tanks Manifesto

Published on July 2, 2012 by Revolutionary Books, The Anti-Think Tank Manifesto has this description:
There are 6000 think tanks in the world, 1800 in the US alone. These organizations pose as non-profit intellectual institutions, but they are all backed by corporations and billionaire foundations. Their stated goal is to help governments with policy, the reality is that they taint democracy. This book is a methodical attack on the think tanks model.

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

The World's Smartest Think Tank?

Is The Edge Foundation the "world's smartest think tank" as the UK's Guardian and Observer have said?

What type of people does Edge attract?  Well, according to Edge:
Edge, at its core, consists of the scientists, artists, philosophers, technologists, and entrepreneurs who are at the center of today's intellectual, technological, and scientific landscape.
Through the years, has had a simple criterion for choosing contributors. We look for people whose creative work has expanded our notion of who and what we are. A few are bestselling authors or are famous in the mass culture. Most are not. Rather, we encourage work on the cutting edge of the culture, and the investigation of ideas that have not been generally exposed. We are interested in "thinking smart;" we are not interested in the anesthesiology of received "wisdom." The motto is "to arrive at the edge of the world's knowledge, seek out the most complex and sophisticated minds, put them in a room together, and have them ask each other the questions they are asking themselves." In communications theory information is not defined as data or input but rather as "a difference that makes a difference.'' It is this level we hope our contributors will achieve.
Here are all the people that participate in Edge.

Here is how Wikipedia describes The Edge Foundation:
The Edge Foundation, Inc. is an organization of science and technology intellectuals created in 1988 as an outgrowth of The Reality Club. Currently, its main activity is maintaining the website, edited by publisher and businessman John Brockman. The site is an online magazine exploring scientific and intellectual ideas.

Monday, July 2, 2012

Ranking Think Tank Impact Per Dollar

The progressive Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) has released an updated version of a study about the cost effectiveness of the most widely cited think tanks.  CEPR, which rates itself as #1, describes it as "an analysis that calculates the number of media hits per budget dollar."

Here are the top ten:
  1. Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR): 1.3 citations per $10,000
  2. Economic Policy Institute (EPI): 0.94
  3. American Enterprise Institute (AEI): 0.47
  4. Cato Institute: 0.35
  5. New America Foundation (NAF): 0.31
  6. Brookings: 0.27
  7. Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE): 0.26
  8. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP): 0.25
  9. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS): 0.25
  10. Center for American Progress (CAP): 0.24
If you click on the link above or here, you can also view the top think tanks rated by website traffic per budget dollar.

CEPR was co-founded in 1999 by economists Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot, and approximately 80 percent of CEPR's funding comes from grants made by foundations.

Foundation support in 2011 included:
  • Annie E. Casey Foundation
  • Arca Foundation
  • Atlantic Philanthropies
  • Ford Foundation
  • Moriah Foundation
  • National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI)
  • Open Society Foundations
  • Public Welfare Foundation
  • Rockefeller Brothers Fund
  • Rockefeller Family Fund
  • Russell Sage Foundation
  • Sloan Foundation
  • Streisand Foundation
The Washington, DC-based CEPR has no connection or relationship whatsoever with the London-based Centre for Economic Policy Research.

One Think Tanker Makes Digital Power Index

Only one think tanker made the Newsweek/Daily Beast 100 Digital Power Index, a listing of the top 100 people who had "outstanding performances in their individual digital fields" during the past year.  Congratulations go to Sasha Meinrath, Director of New America Foundation's (NAF) Open Technology Initiative (OTI).

Here is what is said about Mr. Meinrath:
Since 2009, Sascha Meinrath has been spearheading the Open Technology Initiative at New America Foundation: an effort to develop open-source, low-cost community wireless networks, particularly in underserved areas. In April, the NAF announced the formation of the OTI and named Meinrath a vice president of the foundation. It’s no surprise that Meinrath was one of the more prominent Internet culture leaders to oppose SOPA and PIPA last year.
Here is his NAF biography along with his recent publications, events he has been involved with, blog posts, and press he has received.

The full 100 list can be viewed here.