<i>"'the people within it' --&#62; a company does emphatically not speak for the people within it."</i><p>I did not say it necessarily did, though it's certainly speaking for its leadership, who answers to the human shareholders and is voluntarily associated with the other people in the company.<p><i>"This is in stark contrast with a political party or other groups joined by individuals for political purposes"</i><p>Indeed.  It's a group created for other purposes.  Political involvement is a valid avenue for pursuing those purposes, as the political system affects the group.<p><i>"If a corporations can run for a seat in Congress, and, if they are the voice of shareholders, and these shareholders can be foreign, where does that leave our democracy?"</i><p>That's not a concern, that's open-ended rhetoric based on a publicity stunt. EDIT: One based on a facile misreading of legal principles intended to confuse the uninformed.