From an outsiders perspective, this seems like a false distinction that you are using to rationalize your failure to get government contracts.
If the government squanders money through corrupt practices, I have no opt-out. I can say "I'm not paying my taxes until you fix this corruption problem", but men with guns will lock me in a cage. If a sufficiently large proportion of the electorate support or ignore that corrupt government, they can just take money from my paycheck and give it to their cronies with impunity.
Corporate corruption is bad, but it is fundamentally different to government corruption.
1) You can liquidate, move and bring your wealth with you to a new jurisdiction that would love the capital infusion. You can start a political movement and gather grassroots support to install a less corrupt administration. You can become a revolutionary and fight the state.
There are options; you just don't like them.
The big issue with corruption isn't "what can Joe Q. Average do to stop it".
2) You can't punish a private company by putting together an activist short sell play - it's private, not public.
If a public company squanders money through poor dealings, you probably can't punish them either.
Bill Ackman might be a wee bit of a dick, but he's got a war chest larger than yours and he got his firm, Pershing Square, beat the fuck up exercising his 'options' against Herbalife, who he believed was engaging in corrupt dealings. Right or wrong, Carl Icahn hates Ackman for a lawsuit Ackman won against him and decided to throw piles of money into a short squeeze against Ackman's play.
Note that does mean the practice of "taking a Representative to dinner" would also be an ethical violation at least, and possible anti-bribery statute violation at worst. I find the frequency with which I hear tales of this type of behavior most disturbing.