Bigger companies get power and the ability to lobby because the outcomes are a much bigger deal and 'everything affects everyone'
Bombardier, here in Montreal, is maybe the biggest private employer. They are one of the few companies that provides high end jobs like 'designing products'.
Bombardier makes big planes - they might need special status at the airport, special access to certain things etc..
In a negative case, Bombardier was about to go bankrupt on the tail of a recent bad project. They needed a bailout which the market was not interested in really. If the government did not step in, the company could have folded and would have been devastating. The devastation would have been one thing for Bombardier investors, but probably much worse for so many regular people involved. That fact should express the degree to which these investments are 'important' to parties aside from investors.
Consider for a moment why 'they market' wasn't interested in the first place: because they couldn't make huge bank. Too much risk.
Why does Softbank plow zillions into WeWork and not Bombardier? Because they, Softbank - wants to make 'all the surplus' - not the community. With WeWork, investors 'make bank'. With Bombardier, most of the surplus goes to other parties.
Bigger picture, consider that 'a company' is a balance of power between 1) shareholders/debtors, 2) executives, 3) workers, 4) buyers and 5) suppliers.
In the case of Bombardier - shareholders stand little to gain. The 'winners' of the perpetual equilibrium are the suppliers, buyers, employees.
In many cases, it can be demonstrated that the overwhelming amount of money and surplus generated when a company comes to town is generated for parties 'other than' the investors. (I'm not saying this is always the case of course)
Since to this day, Amazon doesn't even make a lot of profit, and almost 100% of their proceed are invested in jobs, or surpluses for customers ... it's those participating in the system i.e.
For the most part, Amazon is an 'efficiency machine' that provides structure for smart people to work in, to collaborate effectively to do cool new things.
The are 'mostly' a positive force who's investors hardly claim a dime in profit (at least for now).
It's reasonable that some accommodation was made for them, though the $3B seems high, it's actually a small deal especially if it's tax incentives commensurate upon future returns.