Announced in March, the proposed $39 billion takeover of T-Mobile by wireless provider AT&T, would create the nation’s largest wireless company, putting 80 percent of the wireless market into the hands of just two companies. (Verizon is the other.)

Proponents say the deal will spur innovation and help bring service to rural areas more quickly while critics argue those promises are overstated, would likely result despite a merger and have the potential to limit service and harm those customers as the options become increasingly concentrated.

The acquisition, currently being reviewed by the U.S. Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission, is drawing support from Texas politicians on both sides of the aisle, who share in receiving generous funds from AT&T.

In a letter addressed to the U.S. Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission, key lawmaker U.S Representative Lamar Smith, R-Texas, urged the federal government on Monday to “carefully weigh all of the evidence” on the proposed merger between the two telecommunication giants, reports Reuters, Politico and the National Journal:

“Recently, you have heard from members of Congress who, based on the limited information provided in congressional hearings, urged you to conclude that this merger should be blocked,” he wrote. “Unfortunately, they provided you with only one side of the story. I feel compelled to briefly point out the other side.”

While not explicitly endorsing the merger, Smith pointed to various benefits like job creation and competition, and advised agencies to consider these advantages before coming to a conclusion. Smith said other lawmakers’ objections to the merger — like worries from Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wisc., who said in July that the merger would harm to competition, consumers and fail to be in the public interest — were “one-sided” and based on limited information.

Although he and other legislators aren’t granted a direct role in reviewing the merger, Reuters notes, they can be influential in shaping public opinion, by holding hearings and providing oversight of regulatory bodies. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Smith’s agency oversees the Justice Department, where — aside from the FCC — the final decision lies.

However, Smith’s concern, writes Political Correction, is “drowned out” by his pocketbook, which sports generous donations from the two telecom companies. Smith has received $69,800 from AT&T’s PACs, making the company his second-largest benefactor over his career. Smith generated next to nothing from Sprint, the company that stands to take the greatest hit from the merger’s approval.

AT&T PACs are the first or second greatest donors for Republican chairmen heading the three House committees that oversee the merger.

Another strong supporter of the merger is U.S. Rep. Gene Green, D-Texas, joined other lawmakers in signing a June letter to the FCC, supporting the deal.

Green has also benefited from AT&T funds. Since 1997 his campaign has received around $75,000 from the company’s two PACs, according to a Federal Elections Commission records. Money from Sprint’s PAC totaled less than $4,000 during this time period. In the 2010 election cycle, Green received $10,000 from AT&T, who co-hosted at least one fundraiser for the Green campaign in 2010, while letter co-signers and Texas congresmen Al Green ($10,000), Eddie Bernice Johnson ($9,000) and Rubén Hinojosa ($7,500) pocketed cash from the telecomm PAC during the same cycle,according to the Center for Responsive Politics and Paidcontent.org.

The legislators are part of a coalition of 77 Democratic lawmakers who added their signatures to the letter advocating for the merger; 66 of those names received nearly a half-million dollars in campaign contributions from AT&T.

The company was the top contributor to federal campaigns between 1990 and 2010, donating more than $45 million to candidates from both major parties while spending more than $140 million on lobbying in the last 14 years alone, according to media reform group Free Press. That organization sent a letter of its own in June to heads of the U.S. Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which includes ranking member Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, debunking some of AT&T’s promises.

“AT&T gives millions of dollars to people running for office, and then spends even more to meet with them and influence them once they take office.  All that money may or may not buy votes, but it surely buys access,” said Matt Wood, policy director of Free Press. “It’s little wonder then, perhaps, that politicians are willing to support the company and mouth AT&T talking points that run counter to the truth.”

Claims about jobs, rural coverage, service improvements, and prices made first by AT&T and later echoed by political officials, go against a cursory review of the facts, which shows AT&T’s guarantees are overblown, unrelated to the merger, or downright false, said Wood.

Meanwhile, lawmakers like Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., and Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., have been especially outspoken against the deal, calling the move a dangerous blow to competition and innovation. They have said the deal would result in job losses, higher prices, decreased choice and cause “substantial” harm to the public interest. If approved, argued Franken, the market would see an “effective duopoly.”

“It would concentrate enormous power over the entire telecommunications sector in the hands of only two companies, and it would incentivize AT&T and Verizon to coordinate prices to the detriment of consumers,” wrote Franken in a 24-page letter to the FCC. It would create an unreasonable risk to the economy to entrust too much power over such a crucial industry to a company that has a history of market domination. This transaction is not in the public interest. If approved, it would result in greatly reduced competition.”

“Wall Street banks are unwilling to finance new nuclear power facilities, and as a result these projects are unlikely to go forward without the United States government providing billions of dollars in loan guarantee support,” Rep. Markey wrote in a May 6 letter to OMB Director Jacob Lew. “It is my belief that if any of these deals are to go forward, the terms of loan guarantees for nuclear power plants must be as transparent to the public as possible, they must fully incorporate all known market risks, and they must go as far as possible in protecting American taxpayers from having to bailout the nuclear industry in the event of a loan default.”

Markey asked OMB to explain how Fukushima has affected the way the agency views the risks of financing nuclear plants.

He also asked the agency whether the terms of a $8.6 billion conditional loan guarantee issued last year for a project in Georgia by the Southern Company will be reevaluated in light of Fukushima.

But it turns out he’s not the only one seeking the position. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) also announced his interest in the position yesterday.

In a letter to House Democrats, Markey explained his decision. “I do so because I believe the twin issues of energy and the environment will be of paramount importance in the next Congress, and the Natural Resources Committee will be a critical forum in which the national debate over these issue will be played out,” he said.

Markey will likely have his work cut out for him. Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) is the leading contender to take over as chairman of the committee. In a statement released last week, Hastings said his priorities include increasing domestic energy production “through an all-of-the-above energy plan” and ensuring that the Obama administration is held “accountable” for its new offshore drilling policies.

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), the current chairman of the committee, is seeking the ranking spot on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The current chairman, Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.), lost his re-election bid.

In his letter, Markey also acknowledged that the fate of the other committee he chairs, the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, is in question. Some Republicans have said they’ll abolish the committee, which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) established in 2006.

Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), in a statement, said today that BP’s corporate culture prioritized cost cutting over safety, an attempt to counter the preliminary conclusions released by commission staff today. The findings came as a recent ProPublica/Frontline investigation documented significant safety lapses throughout BP’s recent history.

Here’s his statement:

When the culture of a company favors risk-taking and cutting corners above other concerns, systemic failures like this oil spill disaster result without direct decisions being made or tradeoffs being considered.

What is fully evident, from BP’s pipeline spill in Alaska and the Texas city refinery disaster, to the Deepwater Horizon well failure, is that BP has a long and sordid history of cutting costs and pushing the limits in search of higher profits.

If Republicans take over the House, it seems likely that Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) will get the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Though Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), the committee’s ranking Republican, has expressed interest in the position, Republicans appear unlikely to grant him the necessary waiver to take over the panel because of his reputation as a BP apologist.

On top of that, Politico reports today that Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) may take over as the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s telecommunications subcommittee next Congress, leaving his leadership spot on the environment subcommittee, because he knows it will be difficult to pass significant climate legislation.

Republicans have also said that they would like to get rid of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, which Markey currently chairs, if they take over Congress.

On the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, it looks like Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) will stay on as ranking Republican if she wins her re-election bid. Republicans debated taking away her ranking position a while back, but decided not to. Of course, that decision could change after the elections. Murkowski has been campaigning in part on her seniority on the committee.

In an Oct. 22 letter to committee Chairman Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Dudley said:

As I am sure you can imagine, I have an enormous amount of work to do transitioning into this role and am very focused on ensuring the right decisions are made for the future of the company and the safety of our workforce. Therefore, I regret that I must decline your invitation at this time, but I look forward to sharing our progress with you on these important changes once they have been further developed and implemented.

Markey criticized Dudley’s decision in a statement today:

If BP is truly committed to repairing their image and standing with the American people and government officials, Mr. Dudley can start by appearing before Congress.

Dudley made headlines today when he blamed the media and other “observers” for a “rush to judgment” about the impacts of the spill. “The public fear was everywhere,” he said.

The letter is addressed to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk.

Markey asks whether the administration has determined whether China is in fact blocking rare earth mineral exports to the United States (China has denied the reports) and what implications a a shortage of the minerals would have on national security and clean energy technology. Rare earth minerals are used in key military communications and smart bomb technology as well as in wind turbines and hybrid vehicles.

Markey also said he was planning on having a hearing on the issue.

For background on the rare earth mineral issue, see the following posts:
Obama Administration Says It Will Investigate China’s Green Tech Trade Policies
China Dismisses U.S. Investigation of Its Green Tech Trade Policies as Midterm Politicking
Report: China Blocking Rare Earth Mineral Shipments to U.S.
DOD Near Completion of Report on Military’s Use of Rare Earth Minerals

Here’s the letter, via The Hill.

The environmental groups specifically targeted a tar sands oil pipeline from Alberta to Texas proposed by TransCanada. According to the letter, “We are opposed to the building of this pipeline, as it would lock us into decades of consumption of one of the most environmentally destructive forms of oil in the world and would undermine the U.S. transition to a new energy economy.”

The letter was sent by committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), and subcommittee chairmen Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Bart Stupak (D-Mich.)

According to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is conducting an investigation into the Gulf oil spill, BP spent more than $93 million on advertising from April to July 2010.

According to a Sept. 1 letter from Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), who are leading the oil spill investigation:

BP’s increased spending was almost entirely targeted at national and local newspapers and magazines and national and local television advertising. A small portion of the increased spending was targeted at Internet advertising. With respect to television and radio spots, BP indicated that it aired fewer spots during the April-July 2010 time period than during the April-July 2009 time period, but a higher percentage were national and longer, 60-second spots.

BP also expanded the markets in which it ran advertisements from two states and Washington, D.C., to 17 states, the letter says.