EADS was also exempted from critical export control laws that will allow it to use its cozy relationships with Iran and Venezuela

Compared to Boeing's KC-767, the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co.'s KC-30 air tanker is easier to attack in combat, would occupy more space at military airports, requires extensive facility renovations, provides less flexibility in major military operations, and burns far more fuel. And according to an independent study, the EADS KC-30 tanker would cost taxpayers some $30 billion in extra fuel costs and at least another $12 billion in new infrastructure upgrades to accommodate its oversize frame. For the most part, military experts and news organizations have searched for an explanation as to why the U.S. Air Force would uncharacteristically tilt the playing field in favor of a foreign contractor with an arguably more expensive, less capable aircraft that is paid for by illegal subsidies. Most commentators point to the hefty lobbying campaign of EADS and its congressional allies in Alabama -- the one state where EADS will throw a couple thousand jobs for 'final assembly.'
Indeed, news reports have widely cited the influence of the EADS lobbying campaign, pointing to several midcourse changes in the contract award process that unarguably favored EADS.