By Shawn Zeller, CQ Staff

The last time two major airlines — United Air Lines Inc. and US Airways Group Inc. — wanted to merge, back in 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft used his antitrust enforcement powers to thwart the deal. Such a mega-carrier, he concluded, would grant consumers “little choice but to pay higher fares and accept lower quality.”

It was a striking decision, since Ashcroft, who now heads an eponymous lobbying firm, isn’t exactly your textbook trustbuster. But supporters of this spring’s proposed airline marriage, of Northwest Airlines Corp. and Delta Air Lines Inc., are now working hard to reverse the thrust of Ashcroft’s objections, arguing that bigger carriers actually will produce economies of scale that benefit air travelers.

“Right now there’s a lot of competitive pressure and economic pressure on the industry,” says Robert K. Johnson, president of Consumers for Competitive Choice. “If you accept that as a premise, which we do, we believe the merger of Delta and Northwest will maintain hubs and ensure that markets are served.”

Two other Washington groups have launched similar pro-merger campaigns in recent days. The president of one of them, Jeffrey Mazzella of the Center for Individual Freedom, says the merger “will benefit employees and customers of both companies.” The chief executive of the other, Chuck Muth of Citizen Outreach, says that if “the two businesses see this as in the best interest of stockholders, consumers and their businesses, it’s okay.” Both say the industry is in such economic turmoil that many carriers have to either merge or go belly-up.

It sounds, on the face of things, that consumer advocates have succumbed to a bout of merger mania. But on closer inspection, none of the three self-styled consumer and citizen groups bears the typical pedigree of the advocacy outfits they’re mimicking. For one thing, only Johnson’s group is willing to reveal its donors — most of which are similarly obscure advocacy groups, some with corporate backing. And all three appear to have grown out of past, more overt, pro-business and conservative concerns. The Center for Individual Freedom began in the 1990s with links to a group that opposed federal regulation of the cigarette industry. Muth is a former president of the American Conservative Union, and his group is affiliated with Jerry Dorchuck, a Florida political consultant whose firm makes automated calls on behalf of candidates. Johnson is a telecommunications lawyer whose group previously advocated for policies on behalf of donors including AT&T and Verizon. The public interest group Common Cause has labeled Johnson’s group an “Astroturf organization,” arguing that it claims to be advancing a grass-roots pro-consumer agenda while flacking in reality for corporate America.

Johnson and Muth say their groups aren’t taking money from Delta or Northwest. The Center for Individual Freedom would not say anything about its donors.

The consolidation of advocacy efforts is a regular feature in the Washington policy world anytime a major merger is in play. But of course the Northwest-Delta alliance, which would result in a company with a combined $35 billion in annual revenue, is relying on more than the good graces of enterprising activists. Delta has beefed up its lobbying operation by hiring David A. Castagnetti, a partner at Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti. Delta recently hired the new firm created by the recently resigned GOP Sen. Trent Lott and former Democratic Sen. John B. Breaux. Northwest had already signed up Steve Elmendorf, the John Kerry deputy campaign manager in 2004, and Kirk Blalock, a former public affairs aide to President Bush. Both airlines also maintain corporate lobbying offices in Washington.

In the traditional world of consumer advocacy, the merger isn’t making a very good impression. Albert Foer of the American Antitrust Institute says the airline industry’s economic plight doesn’t require any significant revision to Ashcroft’s 2001 position. Last month, Foer urged Justice to reject the Delta and Northwest contentions that theirs is a marriage of economic necessity. “If the airlines failed, their planes are not going to end up sitting in the desert,” he says. “Some of your younger, lower-cost airlines would pick up the inventory and routes and become stronger competitors.”

Foer is similarly impatient with the present crop of merger-promoting advocacy groups. “I’ve never heard of these groups, but I know how these things are put together, and it doesn’t make me take their views all that seriously,” he says.

First posted May 4, 2008 12:41 p.m.