It ought to raise eyebrows when groups like the NAACP, GLAAD, and the nation’s largest teachers union lobby to approve a cellphone company merger.

Fortunately it does at Politico, which has a good story looking at how AT&T’s monopoly bid is getting public support from nonprofits that have nothing to do with telecom.

Well, that last bit’s not quite right. I should say that the only thing they have to do with telecom is that they get big grants from AT&T. And Politico’s Eliza Krigman reports that AT&T’s money talks.

Here’s how GLAAD, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, explained why it came out (so to speak) in favor of an AT&T/Verizon duopoly in cellphone service:

GLAAD — which has received $50,000 from AT&T — recently backed the deal as well, saying it had “the understanding that the merger will increase functionality and speed, thus growing engagement and improving the effectiveness of the online advocacy work that is advancing equality for all,” a GLAAD spokesman said.

And here’s a good example of a grant recipient regurgitating AT&T talking points:

The Columbia Urban League received a $25,000 grant from the AT&T Foundation in 2009 to provide “underserved populations with resources to help their children achieve academic success,” according to the foundation’s IRS Form 990.

On May 27, the group’s president and CEO, James McLawhorn, wrote to urge the FCC to approve AT&T’s acquisition of T-Mobile.

“In our work, we are often witness to the obstacles minority Americans face when trying to access mobile broadband and its associated benefits. This deal would help extricate the barriers keeping our members from attaining these benefits, working towards the end of the digital divide,” he wrote.

This story builds off a Washington Post story from a week ago, and it also had reported some cringeworthy quotes:

AT&T-sponsored Virginia Asian Chamber of Commerce urged the FCC to quickly approve the deal, saying that as a group “striving to create bridges between cultures, we look forward to the foundation that this merger will create and the opportunities that it will give the public.”

The Post reported much of the same stuff but it was unfocused and really could have used some better editing. Here was its “no kidding” headline:

AT&T ramps up lobby for proposed T-Mobile merger

And the lede was all wrong, starting off with a basically irrelevant fact about AT&T opponents and following it with unspecific dullness:

Opponents of AT&T’s proposed merger with T-Mobile filed last-minute petitions to federal regulators Tuesday in hopes of blocking the $39 billion mega-deal. But they are going up against a deep-pocketed telecom giant that’s just getting started on its own campaign to influence the decision.

Compare that to Politico’s headline:

AT&T gave cash to merger backers

And its lede:

AT&T is lining up support for its acquisition of T-Mobile from a slew of liberal groups with no obvious interest in telecom deals — except that they’ve received big piles of AT&T’s cash.

No contest.

Politico’s focus is much sharper here and its headline and lede make you actually want to read the piece, unlike the Post’s. The nonprofit-donations issue is the bulk of the Post’s story—eight of its fourteen grafs—but the paper doesn’t get around to focusing on the nonprofit-donations issue until the fifth paragraph, and even that is problematic:

Aside from money spent directly on lobbying government officials, industry observers say, AT&T is receiving support from several political leaders, trade groups and organizations such as the NAACP and at least one affiliate of the National Urban League. All have direct financial ties to the telecom giant.

This should have been the lede, but it shouldn’t have been sourced to “industry observers.” The facts are the facts.

While Politico does a better job of getting to the heart of the story, it does a little burying of its own. This is good reporting and it should have been up higher than the 22nd and 23rd paragraphs:

To build support, AT&T employees and consultants have been making personal visits and calls as well as holding luncheons.

Ryan Chittum is a former Wall Street Journal reporter, and deputy editor of The Audit, CJR's business section. If you see notable business journalism, give him a heads-up at rc2538@columbia.edu.