For now its an edge case. Thats partially the case because we put such stringent restrictions on the kinds of assistance we can offer, but even in America there are claims of corruption with giving out government assistance.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/nov/15/ame...

There is structural favoritism, if not nepotism, in the federal system. The byzantine bidding process, requirements, etc. mean only either very large companies or very specialized companies tend to go for direct government contracts. Plus, even in cases where they are initially assigned fairly, they become a prime contractor and can be gatekeepers on every other aspect of the system. Even if their decisions are then not made on profit motives, they're not made on "best interest of the customer", either -- it's about reducing risk (of all kinds) vs. delivering the best expected product to the customer.

Okay, let me put it another way. While they may not get the contract, friends and relatives of the same politicians suddenly do find themselves beneficiaries of those who do win the contracts.

Remember the fun with Countrywide and the sweet heart loans? How some politicians or their friends do so well in the stock market or get into IPOs at a level not afforded to the public. If not family is it not worse when those who support your campaigns are the ones more likely rewarded with the contracts?

So yes, while direct attempts may be protected against nothing stops the train of indirect benefits.