There’s no cynicism about it (not that cynicism would be intrinsically something bad, but that’s another discussion), but that’s the thing, the Government sayin

There’s no cynicism about it (not that cynicism would be intrinsically something bad, but that’s another discussion), but that’s the thing, the Government saying and actually checking that X sum is spent by a certain company on objective Y doesn’t make any sense, because once the X sum of money enters the company’s coffers its “substance” changes, it isn’t “X” anymore, it is “drowned” in the anonymity of said company’s available (or achievable) funds (funding). Again, I have no doubts that the Government will actually check that the money marked as “Z”, money which had been given to said company, is actually spent on objective Y, but it’s all illusory, because that money has stopped “being” Z once it entered the company’s accounts. To put it another way, it’s similar to the futility of those well-meaning people who give some homeless person $5 on the express condition that they spend those $5 on food, not on alcohol or drugs. Which said homeless person is all too happy to do, he/she will gladly spend those gifted $5 on food, which leaves the other hipotethical $5 which he/she had in their pocket all available for buying drugs or alcohol, money which otherwise would have been spent probably half and half (2.50 on food, 2.50 on drugs). At least in the counter-example I gave the result of largesse is a homeless person better fed, which is good (and also more intoxicated, which is not so good), but in this example with Intel you have taxpayers filling the pockets of one of the biggest tech companies in the world.