You seem to be operating under the belief this is harder than corrupting State and/or local governments.
Hint: It is easier, not harder.
> b) able to out-perform the decentralized economic decision-making mechanism of the market (prices),
Corruption is done via the marketplace at market prices within an ideological range the constituency will accept. I'm uncertain why you think that isn't market-based.
> a) completely altruistic in allocating a pile of cash to the places that will produce the most economic benefit
If they were paid the market price to perform this function then, yes, they could do so. Nothing prevents that.
> Here's an alternate proposal: decentralize power back to the states and have groups of states work out arrangements among themselves to enhance their shared cross-border economies. Reduce the federal take of taxes, leaving the money in the hands of the people who actually innovate, employ, and make economic decisions.
Corruption at the local level is pervasive, extensive, and frequently impossible to fight due to the fact the only people with the financial resources are the ones who bought the local government in the first place [or nonprofits who cover a greater area, such as the ACLU, and able to bring in out of area money to compete against the corruption].
If you think this is a recipe for reducing corruption, I suggest you get involved in local politics and try to support a minority candidate in a heavily white area. Hell, they'll do all sorts of legal [but shady] shit like hire a guy with the same name [different middle initial] and put them both on the ballot to split the vote. You only need to pull of a few percentage points of support this way to win in many situations.
> The fantasies of central planners never end.
The fantasies of people who think decentralization reduces corruption never end either.