Not with respect to the DFE of mutations in functional or junk DNA, zero evidence that they deviate*. The only main difference between bacteria and large multicellular eukaryotes that could meaningfully impact the DFE of mutations measured across their total genome would be that most large multicellular eukaryotes have a lot more junk-DNA.
But of course at the physical and biochemical level, bacteria still operate on the same physical principles as larger and more complex eukaryotic organisms do. They still have enzymes, they still regulate their expression with DNA binding proteins that initiate or inhibit transcription, they still have phospholipid bilayer membranes that provide barriers between the inside and outside of cells, they still employ proteins to transport waste products out and nutrients in. They still need to eat to survive, and grow and divide to reproduce.
So for all these same reasons, bacterial protein coding genes and promoter and enhancer regions would have local and global optima that would entail essentially similar DFE of mutations, which would also depend strongly on how adapted they already are and change as a function of overall fitness.
Oh and as I have said numerous times, since neither Sanford, Carter, or Price can give me an equation for the rate of fitness decline due to Genetic Entropy that has a factor called “simplicity”, their excuse that “simple” organims should suffer less GE is totally meaningless and vacuous. It gets even worse when, as @CrisprCAS9 points out, by any intuitive account viruses are much simpler than bacteria, and yet these are supposedly succumbing due to GE.
*Edit: Forgot to mention, bacteria generally have huge population sizes, which would imply that mutations of smaller effect are visible to selection.